Forgiving sailplanes

[EvValentin808]

Can anyone give me a list of forgiving sailplanes out there. I know some like the Schweizers, Rudolf Kaiser's designs(Schleicher K-series) and the Discus... Any other to list?

[bildan]

On Jul 20, 8:35*am, EvValentin808
> wrote:
> Can anyone give me a list of forgiving sailplanes out there. I know some
> like the Schweizers, *Rudolf Kaiser's designs(Schleicher K-series) and
> the Discus... Any other to list?
>
> --
> EvValentin808

No doubt this thread will have a long run.

My view is that all gliders are 'forgiving' - if flown by a qualified
pilot. OTOH, unqualified pilots can wreck any glider no matter how
'forgiving'.

In any event, 'forgiving' handling qualities has little to do with the
safety of the pilot. Any glider, no matter how 'forgiving' can be
flown into a very unforgiving Earth. They will still collide with
mountains and other gliders. Trees and other obstacles can still
wreck them. The number of accidents with poor handling qualities as
the primary cause is virtually non-existent.

What's REALLY unforgiving is nature. Make enough mistakes and 'ol
Mother Nature will kill or maim you. She's merciless. Her goal is
just cleaning the gene pool.

So, forget handling qualities and worry about flying skills. They're
FAR more important.

[rlovinggood]

One aspect that "may" be considered as a "forgiving" item is a nose
hook vs. a CG hook for aero-towing.

Wing drops, cross-winds, lousy piloting techinque, etc can be
magnified to nasty trips into the closest runway light when aero-
towing with a CG hook whereas a tow rope connected to a nose hook
"may" have the ability to pull you straight and away from expensive
trouble.

Of course, your mileage may vary...

Ray Lovinggood
LS1-d with CG hook, but no runway lights

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jul 20, 12:24*pm, bildan > wrote:
> So, forget handling qualities and worry about flying skills. *They're
> FAR more important.

Nevertheless some manufacturers have in the past put performance ahead
of handling and others have put handling ahead of performance. While
a skilled pilot can overcome handling defficiencies they can kill an
inattentive or inexperienced pilot.

Any pilot considering purchasing a glider should consider at least -

Do I fit in it comfortably
Do I have adequate rear quadrant visibility to fly safely with other
gliders
Are the handling characteristics (particularly stall/spin) benign, or
am I skilled enough to cope with them if they are not.

To answer the OP question - based on 1,500 hours in the ASW-19b I can
say it has very pleasant handling and has no flight characterisitcs
that make it unsuitable for low time piilots. Its only vice is a
reluctance to go straight at the start of tow with a strong cross
wind, but that can be overcome by pilot skill.

Andy (GY)

[Eric Greenwell]

On 7/20/2010 12:24 PM, bildan wrote:
> On Jul 20, 8:35 am, EvValentin808
> > wrote:
>
>> Can anyone give me a list of forgiving sailplanes out there. I know some
>> like the Schweizers, Rudolf Kaiser's designs(Schleicher K-series) and
>> the Discus... Any other to list?
>>
>> --
>> EvValentin808
>>
> No doubt this thread will have a long run.
>
> My view is that all gliders are 'forgiving' - if flown by a qualified
> pilot. OTOH, unqualified pilots can wreck any glider no matter how
> 'forgiving'.
>
> In any event, 'forgiving' handling qualities has little to do with the
> safety of the pilot. Any glider, no matter how 'forgiving' can be
> flown into a very unforgiving Earth. They will still collide with
> mountains and other gliders. Trees and other obstacles can still
> wreck them. The number of accidents with poor handling qualities as
> the primary cause is virtually non-existent.
>

I don't agree at all. A qualified pilot can compensate for "unforgiving"
qualities, but that doesn't make the glider "forgiving". Some gliders
have very poor glide path control, some spin easily, with little
warning, and don't recover quickly. Put the CG too far aft, and most
gliders are likely not "forgiving".

Even a qualified pilot can be distracted, or tired, or hypoxic, or
dehydrated, and the outcome is likely to be much better in a "forgiving"
glider than one that isn't. The "forgiveness" difference between an
early Std Cirrus and any LS4 is an important one, as an example. Or
between an ASK 21 and a Nimbus 4D.
> What's REALLY unforgiving is nature. Make enough mistakes and 'ol
> Mother Nature will kill or maim you. She's merciless. Her goal is
> just cleaning the gene pool.
>
I don't think the "Mother Nature" is the main factor in most glider
accidents. Look at how many happen near the airport and in good weather.
> So, forget handling qualities and worry about flying skills. They're
> FAR more important.
>

There is no reason at all to "forget about" something that you can buy
and have it work for you every time you fly. Get a glider that won't
surprise you, even if you make a mistake, get the flying skills you need
to handle it, and work constantly on the judgment that will keep you out
of bad situations.

--
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

[bildan]

On Jul 20, 1:59*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> On 7/20/2010 12:24 PM, bildan wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 8:35 am, EvValentin808
> > > *wrote:
>
> >> Can anyone give me a list of forgiving sailplanes out there. I know some
> >> like the Schweizers, *Rudolf Kaiser's designs(Schleicher K-series) and
> >> the Discus... Any other to list?
>
> >> --
> >> EvValentin808
>
> > No doubt this thread will have a long run.
>
> > My view is that all gliders are 'forgiving' - if flown by a qualified
> > pilot. *OTOH, unqualified pilots can wreck any glider no matter how
> > 'forgiving'.
>
> > In any event, 'forgiving' handling qualities has little to do with the
> > safety of the pilot. *Any glider, no matter how 'forgiving' can be
> > flown into a very unforgiving Earth. *They will still collide with
> > mountains and other gliders. *Trees and other obstacles can still
> > wreck them. *The number of accidents with poor handling qualities as
> > the primary cause is virtually non-existent.
>
> I don't agree at all. A qualified pilot can compensate for "unforgiving"
> qualities, but that doesn't make the glider "forgiving". Some gliders
> have very poor glide path control, some spin easily, with little
> warning, and don't recover quickly. Put the CG too far aft, and most
> gliders are likely not "forgiving".

Right, and the only thing that makes these gliders 'forgiving' is
pilot skill. My experience is the difference between the worst and
best handling glider is fairly small. After all, they have to go
through the same certification process. (Experimental glider
excluded, of course.)

>
> Even a qualified pilot can be distracted, or tired, or hypoxic, or
> dehydrated, and the outcome is likely to be much better in a "forgiving"
> glider than one that isn't.

You really think mere benign handling qualities will save this guy?
He's likely to fly his 'forgiving' glider into a tree.

> What's REALLY unforgiving is nature. *Make enough mistakes and 'ol
> > Mother Nature will kill or maim you. *She's merciless. * Her goal is
> > just cleaning the gene pool.
>
> I don't think the "Mother Nature" is the main factor in most glider
> accidents. Look at how many happen near the airport and in good weather.

Mother nature = gravity. Gravity is involved in all accidents.
>
> > So, forget handling qualities and worry about flying skills. *They're
> > FAR more important.
>
> There is no reason at all to "forget about" something that you can buy
> and have it work for you every time you fly. Get a glider that won't
> surprise you, even if you make a mistake, get the flying skills you need
> to handle it, and work constantly on the judgment that will keep you out
> of bad situations.

I don't think you can "buy" safety - (except by hiring a highly
proficient pilot to fly you around in a two seater). A lot of pilots
who have tried to buy it are dead. Safety is something you have to
earn with training, practice and RESPECT for the danger.

[John Smith]

bildan wrote:
> My experience is the difference between the worst and
> best handling glider is fairly small.

No. Give a low-time student an ASK-21 and he will happily thermal away.
Give the same student a Fox and he will kill himself.

[Bruce]

On 2010/07/20 10:44 PM, bildan wrote:
> On Jul 20, 1:59 pm, Eric > wrote:
>> On 7/20/2010 12:24 PM, bildan wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 20, 8:35 am, EvValentin808
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> Can anyone give me a list of forgiving sailplanes out there. I know some
>>>> like the Schweizers, Rudolf Kaiser's designs(Schleicher K-series) and
>>>> the Discus... Any other to list?
>>
>>>> --
>>>> EvValentin808
>>
>>> No doubt this thread will have a long run.
>>
>>> My view is that all gliders are 'forgiving' - if flown by a qualified
>>> pilot. OTOH, unqualified pilots can wreck any glider no matter how
>>> 'forgiving'.
>>
>>> In any event, 'forgiving' handling qualities has little to do with the
>>> safety of the pilot. Any glider, no matter how 'forgiving' can be
>>> flown into a very unforgiving Earth. They will still collide with
>>> mountains and other gliders. Trees and other obstacles can still
>>> wreck them. The number of accidents with poor handling qualities as
>>> the primary cause is virtually non-existent.
>>
>> I don't agree at all. A qualified pilot can compensate for "unforgiving"
>> qualities, but that doesn't make the glider "forgiving". Some gliders
>> have very poor glide path control, some spin easily, with little
>> warning, and don't recover quickly. Put the CG too far aft, and most
>> gliders are likely not "forgiving".
>
> Right, and the only thing that makes these gliders 'forgiving' is
> pilot skill. My experience is the difference between the worst and
> best handling glider is fairly small. After all, they have to go
> through the same certification process. (Experimental glider
> excluded, of course.)
>
>>
>> Even a qualified pilot can be distracted, or tired, or hypoxic, or
>> dehydrated, and the outcome is likely to be much better in a "forgiving"
>> glider than one that isn't.
>
> You really think mere benign handling qualities will save this guy?
> He's likely to fly his 'forgiving' glider into a tree.
>
>> What's REALLY unforgiving is nature. Make enough mistakes and 'ol
>>> Mother Nature will kill or maim you. She's merciless. Her goal is
>>> just cleaning the gene pool.
>>
>> I don't think the "Mother Nature" is the main factor in most glider
>> accidents. Look at how many happen near the airport and in good weather.
>
> Mother nature = gravity. Gravity is involved in all accidents.
>>
>>> So, forget handling qualities and worry about flying skills. They're
>>> FAR more important.
>>
>> There is no reason at all to "forget about" something that you can buy
>> and have it work for you every time you fly. Get a glider that won't
>> surprise you, even if you make a mistake, get the flying skills you need
>> to handle it, and work constantly on the judgment that will keep you out
>> of bad situations.
>
> I don't think you can "buy" safety - (except by hiring a highly
> proficient pilot to fly you around in a two seater). A lot of pilots
> who have tried to buy it are dead. Safety is something you have to
> earn with training, practice and RESPECT for the danger.
Hi Bill

I'm with Eric here. My first glass was (still is) a Std Cirrus. Nimble,
responsive, fun to fly. Unforgiving of inattention. Easy to spin (and
correct) Landings are always challenging with the pitch sensitivity, and
low washout tips.
Second is a Kestrel 19 - much heavier, more complex, big wings. I know
which one I have to worry more in. Specifically about my performance -
not the glider - About getting dehydrated or simply tired, about making
a mistake at a critical point. And you do get more tired because you can
never relax in the Cirrus.

Skill is not everything. Attentiveness and luck also play a role, as do
things like the relative effort required to safely conduct a flight.

If you fly something with exemplary handling, like a (Duo)Discus or a
K21 or a LS4 it is a lot easier to be safe.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 7/20/2010 1:24 PM, bildan wrote:
> On Jul 20, 8:35 am, EvValentin808
> > wrote:
>> Can anyone give me a list of forgiving sailplanes out there. I know some
>> like the Schweizers, Rudolf Kaiser's designs(Schleicher K-series) and
>> the Discus... Any other to list?
>>
>> --
>> EvValentin808
>
> No doubt this thread will have a long run.
>
> My view is that all gliders are 'forgiving' - if flown by a qualified
> pilot. OTOH, unqualified pilots can wreck any glider no matter how
> 'forgiving'.
>
> In any event, 'forgiving' handling qualities has little to do with the
> safety of the pilot. Any glider, no matter how 'forgiving' can be
> flown into a very unforgiving Earth. They will still collide with
> mountains and other gliders. Trees and other obstacles can still
> wreck them. The number of accidents with poor handling qualities as
> the primary cause is virtually non-existent.
>
> What's REALLY unforgiving is nature. Make enough mistakes and 'ol
> Mother Nature will kill or maim you. She's merciless. Her goal is
> just cleaning the gene pool.
>
> So, forget handling qualities and worry about flying skills. They're
> FAR more important.
>

Well between Bill D. and Eric G. it didn't take long to 'answerically'
touch upon both ends of the philosophic spectrum to the initial question!

FWIW, while I don't disagree with anything Eric wrote, neither do I
disagree with Bill. (And, no, I am not a politician seeking agreement
with everyone!) So how do I reconcile my wildly diverging viewpoints?

Easy.

If there really and truly exists a Joe Glider Pilot who opts to
seriously believe that by buying a 'forgiving sailplane' to the
exclusion of not also mentally and physically actively working the
personal-skills-development side of their piloting, I'll bet real money
they'll sooner or later have an 'absence-of-skills/judgment-related'
accident of some kind. (To use a power-plane-related example, think
'Ercoupe'. In the glider world, think 'G-103', AS K-21' etc. Each type
is immensely docile in many ways...and each routinely crunched.)

Nor is the continuing development of flight/judgment skills inoculation
against having accidents...but personally, I'd much rather ride with a
pilot who continually works to hone such skills, than one complacent to
the point of not recognizing their value.

That said, I also happen to believe that the differences between
'world's most forgiving glider' and 'world's most treacherous' are
'talkworthy-small'. I write that, as a pilot who learned on Schweizers,
and (with but 400 total hours) transitioned (safely and essentially
uneventfully) to a glider many pilots would probably off-the-cuff
conclude is a handful. (The 'handful' is a no-spoilers, side-sticked,
1st-generation, 15-meter fiberglass Zuni.) Prior to that I flew a
homebuilt 55-foot-span, V-tailed, HP-14...again
landing-flaps-only/no-spoilers...you don't have to search far to find
all sorts of horror stories about the difficulties of flying Schreder
gliders.

At transition time(s) I didn't consider myself God's gift to the soaring
world (still don't, chortle). Nor did I ever consider the HP-14 or the
Zuni 'a handful'. (Both - within their limitations - are, in truth,
pussycats.)

Meanwhile, my longtime club has historically had one or another example
of Schweizer 2-32. Now *there's* a Schweizer ready to bite the
unskilled, unrespectful, unwary or non-listening!!! Am I badmouthing it?
Heavens, no! It's a great ship. Further, nothing in our club checkout
rules for it would lead a casual reader to distinguish the 2-32 from our
G-103. Yet, they're completely different gliders, as any flight
involving spin attempts would beautifully/'instantly' illustrate.
Furthermore, *any* checkout flight could also be expected to clearly
strongly hint at why entirely different pattern 'thinking' is taught for
the two ship types, as well. Yet, non-instructor-me will happily ride
with any of our recently-checked-out pilots in either ship...so long as
i think they're seriously interested in continuing to develop their
skills and judgment.

Seriously,
Bob - pilot-skill spectrum far exceeds 'glider-difficulty' spectrum - W.

[bildan]

On Jul 20, 2:55*pm, John Smith > wrote:
> bildan wrote:
> > My experience is the difference between the worst and
> > best handling glider is fairly small.
>
> No. Give a low-time student an ASK-21 and he will happily thermal away.
> Give the same student a Fox and he will kill himself.

Thanks for bringing up the Fox. Learn to fly one with a great
instructor and every other glider will seem like a pussycat. THEN,
you're a safe - at least from handling issues.

A competent pilot (meaning one who has trained in the Fox with an
expert) can fly a Fox safely AND fly the ASK-21 safely. The student
thermalling happily in an ASK-21 is neither competent nor safe since
he may have to land in a gusty crosswind among other things. The key
here isn't the glider, it's the pilot's skill.

No glider is so 'forgiving' that it will save a pilot from himself or
from the inevitable flukes of nature and few, if any, gliders are so
viscous a pilot can't be trained to fly them safely. Safety, to the
extent that it exists, is in the skill set a pilot brings to the task.

I learned to fly in an LK-10A - a glider whose spin characteristics
make a 2-32 seem like a pussycat. We trained all sorts to fly it and,
yes, there were a few accidents but they were the same kind students
have with 2-33's. Pilots were afraid of the LK's spin characteristics
so they were careful not to spin (a good thing). Instead of spinning,
they hit fences.

Let me repeat my key point - you can't buy safety, you have to earn it
with training, practice and RESPECT. If a pilot is so concerned about
his ability he's seeking to buy a 'safe'glider, he should spend his
money on more training.

[John Smith]

bildan wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2:55 pm, John > wrote:
>> bildan wrote:
>>> My experience is the difference between the worst and
>>> best handling glider is fairly small.
>>
>> No. Give a low-time student an ASK-21 and he will happily thermal away.
>> Give the same student a Fox and he will kill himself.

....
> Let me repeat my key point - you can't buy safety, you have to earn it
....

Without any doubt. But you claimed that the difference in handling among
gliders was "fairly small". And this just isn't so.

[Dave Newill]

On Jul 20, 10:35*am, EvValentin808
> wrote:
> Can anyone give me a list of forgiving sailplanes out there. I know some
> like the Schweizers, *Rudolf Kaiser's designs(Schleicher K-series) and
> the Discus... Any other to list?
>
> --
> EvValentin808

[ Smile ] My ASW-15 probably forgave me many times!

Actually the ASW-15 is a great ship - quick to turn - "talks" through
the wings and always got me to an airport - albeit not always the home
airport!

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jul 20, 7:35*am, EvValentin808
> wrote:
> Can anyone give me a list of forgiving sailplanes out there. I know some
> like the Schweizers, *Rudolf Kaiser's designs(Schleicher K-series) and
> the Discus... Any other to list?
>
> --
> EvValentin808

Well it's obvious from the replies thus far that you will need to
define what you mean by "forgiving".

it could range from - If I hit something really hard with it will I
die.

to

If I make the slightest uncoordinated control input will I spin down
through the gaggle and take out three of my friends

to

If the drogue chute fails to deploy do have any chance of making an
off airport landing without breaking the glider

to

If I fart is it well enough ventilated that I won't pass out, enter an
unrecoverable spin, and die

or maybe

If I don't make perfect control inputs all the time will it cost me
more than .05% performance.

What did you mean?? What forgiveness are you seeking?

Andy

[Jim Logajan]

Andy > wrote:
> On Jul 20, 7:35*am, EvValentin808
> > wrote:
>> Can anyone give me a list of forgiving sailplanes out there. I know some
>> like the Schweizers, *Rudolf Kaiser's designs(Schleicher K-series) and
>> the Discus... Any other to list?
>>
>> --
>> EvValentin808
>
> Well it's obvious from the replies thus far that you will need to
> define what you mean by "forgiving".

I thought he defined "forgiving" by providing examples?

> it could range from - If I hit something really hard with it will I
> die.

Can you do that with the examples he gave? (After the abuse I put on an
SGS 2-33A and living to tell the tale....)

> If I make the slightest uncoordinated control input will I spin down
> through the gaggle and take out three of my friends

How about three enemies?

> What did you mean?? What forgiveness are you seeking?

Maybe he wants a Catholic glider?

"Forgive me Father, for I have spinned...."

;-)

[bildan]

On Jul 20, 5:24*pm, John Smith > wrote:
> bildan wrote:
> > On Jul 20, 2:55 pm, John > *wrote:
> >> bildan wrote:
> >>> My experience is the difference between the worst and
> >>> best handling glider is fairly small.
>
> >> No. Give a low-time student an ASK-21 and he will happily thermal away..
> >> Give the same student a Fox and he will kill himself.
>
> ...> Let me repeat my key point - you can't buy safety, you have to earn it
>
> ...
>
> Without any doubt. But you claimed that the difference in handling among
> gliders was "fairly small". And this just isn't so.


It is so.

If you step outside the cloistered world of sailplanes into the world
of airplanes you'll find very wide differences. Withing the wide
world of aviation, sailplanes exist in a "fairly small" envelope of
handling qualities. There are outliers, of course, but the majority
are pretty much alike in being very benign, gentle aircraft. Pilots
whose entire experience is limited to sailplanes may tend to magnify
small differences others wouldn't notice.

I've never flown a glider with a 'bad rep' which lived up to it and I
have more than 200 types in my logbook. I once owned a Lark IS28B2
which, in come circles, has a bad reputation for unintentional spins.
You'll hear things like, "It'll just drop out from under you." This
isn't true.

I took one such pilot for a BFR check ride in the Lark. When I asked
him to demonstrate slow flight, he didn't notice the glider's
pronounced pre-stall buffet. It was shaking the glider until stuff
fell off the Velcro but HE was shaking even more than the glider.
When I took the controls, calmed him down and asked him to feel the
buffet, I was able to tell him, "See, it warns you before it stalls -
just feel for the buffet." For him it was an epiphany - he really
enjoyed the rest of the flight.

Same thing with a 2-32 which is a big old sweetheart. It has a nice
little shake to the stick which tells you it's too slow but you won't
feel it if you have a death grip. Yes, it'll spin but not without
warning.

[Eric Greenwell]

On 7/20/2010 3:57 PM, bildan wrote:
> Let me repeat my key point - you can't buy safety, you have to earn it
> with training, practice and RESPECT. If a pilot is so concerned about
> his ability he's seeking to buy a 'safe'glider, he should spend his
> money on more training.
>
I believe you can buy safety, or at least more safety. Gliders are not
all certified to the same standard, and that is why the older gliders,
like the Std Cirrus, are not as forgiving as the newer gliders. And the
safety you can buy is not just easier handling, but things like
automatic hookups and crash-resistant cockpits.

But don't understand my use of the word "buy" to mean just "spend more
money"; it's more about the glider you select, not the amount you pay
for it. My real message: some gliders are safer to fly because they land
more slowly, have excellent glidepath control, don't want to spin, give
plenty of warning, recover quickly from mishandling, and generally offer
more protection screwups in a variety of ways.

A pilot that is qualified to assemble and fly a Nimbus 4 will have a
greater margin in an ASK 21. A pilot that can't manage a Nimbus 4 can
still be a very safe pilot in a Blanik. Gliders are not the same across
the spectrum available to the buyer.

I've flown my ASH 26 E for 15 years and 3000 hours with out any
accidents, so I believe I'm qualified to fly it. Do I believe I'd be
safer in an ASK 21? Yes! Occasionally, I do fly a slower, simpler
glider, and I'm amazed at how easy it is. It reminds that my safety
margins are smaller with my ASH 26 E, but I accept that because I enjoy
it so much it's worth the risk.

--
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

[Jim Logajan]

bildan > wrote:
> I don't think you can "buy" safety

I don't think you can buy absolute safety either. But damned if I can see
what that has to do with the OP's question.

Do you think pilots wanting seat belts in their aircraft is a sign they are
danger to themselves and others?

[Steve]

On Jul 20, 9:35*am, EvValentin808
> wrote:
> Can anyone give me a list of forgiving sailplanes out there. I know some
> like the Schweizers, *Rudolf Kaiser's designs(Schleicher K-series) and
> the Discus... Any other to list?
>
> --
> EvValentin808

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYDdEjloYJ0&feature=related

This is one way a sailplane can be forgiving. I believe the pilot
flew it the next day. The only damage was an aileron bell crank cover
which popped off. Kudos to the pilot, this was a sudden storm which
came up during a contest, several other gliders landed out and this
one, coming in very fast saw another glider which had skidded into a
180 in front of him. He initiated a course correction to avoid
hitting the other glider.

[T8]

On Jul 20, 11:04*pm, Steve > wrote:
> On Jul 20, 9:35*am, EvValentin808
>
> > wrote:
> > Can anyone give me a list of forgiving sailplanes out there. I know some
> > like the Schweizers, *Rudolf Kaiser's designs(Schleicher K-series) and
> > the Discus... Any other to list?
>
> > --
> > EvValentin808
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYDdEjloYJ0&feature=related
>
> This is one way a sailplane can be forgiving. *I believe the pilot
> flew it the next day. *The only damage was an aileron bell crank cover
> which popped off. *Kudos to the pilot, this was a sudden storm which
> came up during a contest, several other gliders landed out and this
> one, coming in very fast saw another glider which had skidded into a
> 180 in front of him. *He initiated a course correction to avoid
> hitting the other glider.

Actually, I think this video illustrates one of Bill's (other) points
fairly well.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[T8]

On Jul 20, 11:04*pm, Steve > wrote:
> On Jul 20, 9:35*am, EvValentin808
>
> > wrote:
> > Can anyone give me a list of forgiving sailplanes out there. I know some
> > like the Schweizers, *Rudolf Kaiser's designs(Schleicher K-series) and
> > the Discus... Any other to list?
>
> > --
> > EvValentin808
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYDdEjloYJ0&feature=related
>
> This is one way a sailplane can be forgiving. *I believe the pilot
> flew it the next day. *The only damage was an aileron bell crank cover
> which popped off. *Kudos to the pilot, this was a sudden storm which
> came up during a contest, several other gliders landed out and this
> one, coming in very fast saw another glider which had skidded into a
> 180 in front of him. *He initiated a course correction to avoid
> hitting the other glider.

I think that video provides a great illustration of Bill's points on
airmanship.

I don't know who got away with this landing... but I do hope that he
isn't tempted to try something like this again.

And yeah... I've done dumb stuff too. No ivory tower here.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Derek C]

On Jul 20, 10:09*pm, Bruce > wrote:
> On 2010/07/20 10:44 PM, bildan wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 1:59 pm, Eric > *wrote:
> >> On 7/20/2010 12:24 PM, bildan wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 20, 8:35 am, EvValentin808
> >>> > * *wrote:
>
> >>>> Can anyone give me a list of forgiving sailplanes out there. I know some
> >>>> like the Schweizers, *Rudolf Kaiser's designs(Schleicher K-series) and
> >>>> the Discus... Any other to list?
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> EvValentin808
>
> >>> No doubt this thread will have a long run.
>
> >>> My view is that all gliders are 'forgiving' - if flown by a qualified
> >>> pilot. *OTOH, unqualified pilots can wreck any glider no matter how
> >>> 'forgiving'.
>
> >>> In any event, 'forgiving' handling qualities has little to do with the
> >>> safety of the pilot. *Any glider, no matter how 'forgiving' can be
> >>> flown into a very unforgiving Earth. *They will still collide with
> >>> mountains and other gliders. *Trees and other obstacles can still
> >>> wreck them. *The number of accidents with poor handling qualities as
> >>> the primary cause is virtually non-existent.
>
> >> I don't agree at all. A qualified pilot can compensate for "unforgiving"
> >> qualities, but that doesn't make the glider "forgiving". Some gliders
> >> have very poor glide path control, some spin easily, with little
> >> warning, and don't recover quickly. Put the CG too far aft, and most
> >> gliders are likely not "forgiving".
>
> > Right, and the only thing that makes these gliders 'forgiving' is
> > pilot skill. *My experience is the difference between the worst and
> > best handling glider is fairly small. *After all, they have to go
> > through the same certification process. *(Experimental glider
> > excluded, of course.)
>
> >> Even a qualified pilot can be distracted, or tired, or hypoxic, or
> >> dehydrated, and the outcome is likely to be much better in a "forgiving"
> >> glider than one that isn't.
>
> > You really think mere benign handling qualities will save this guy?
> > He's likely to fly his 'forgiving' glider into a tree.
>
> >> What's REALLY unforgiving is nature. *Make enough mistakes and 'ol
> >>> Mother Nature will kill or maim you. *She's merciless. * Her goal is
> >>> just cleaning the gene pool.
>
> >> I don't think the "Mother Nature" is the main factor in most glider
> >> accidents. Look at how many happen near the airport and in good weather.

[Bruce]

Hi Derek

You are correct - I am amplifying the difference. As I said I actually
prefer the handling on the Cirrus. BUT - I learned, on the Cirrus, to
fly with a very light touch on the stick. There is virtually no force
feedback on pitch. Especially in some of the big rough thermals we get
here, you tend to get a wing dropping quite easily.

As Bob commented - it is a pilot skill thing. I can, and do, fly the
Cirrus quite close to the limit and get the best climb rates etc. When I
do that I am aware that the departure from controlled flight is quite
rapid - and if I am not paying attention I will have a wing drop.
Recovery is instant - just unload the wing. Smoothly approached there is
a distinct turbulent warning - especially as the wake hits the elevator.

So - the Cirrus is a precise aircraft to fly, but can be more work than
some others. e.g. you can't take your hand off the stick for more than a
second or so (Phugoid is divergent and the elevator is effectively
mounted on a gimbal), and will reliably reward ham fisted insensitive
control inputs with a spin. The point I was trying to make is that some
aircraft require more attention. Which can contribute to impaired
capability - which is less safe.

For what it is worth.

I have serial Std Cirrus number 57. Which is a little different - it was
imported by the Schempp agent specifically for the purpose of flying
records. So - It has lower washout on the tips, (standard on early models)
- the components (wings/fuselage etc) were selected at the factory for
being heavy.
- It has a tail wheel and is set up with the CG quite far aft. I have to
accept that as the heavy fuselage limits the amount of weight I can put
in the nose without exceeding max non-lifting weight with me in it.
- Said heroic early owners damaged both wingtips, and broke the fuselage
(twice) and elevator - so lots of repairs at various stages. Maybe she
is not 100% straight.
- Currently in the workshop getting the second paddles added to the
airbrakes and winglets to improve the low speed behaviour, and a
cosmetic make over to make her pretty again.

Bruce

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Derek C]

On Jul 21, 9:56*am, Bruce > wrote:
> Hi Derek
>
> You are correct - I am amplifying the difference. As I said I actually
> prefer the handling on the Cirrus. BUT - I learned, on the Cirrus, to
> fly with a very light touch on the stick. There is virtually no force
> feedback on pitch. Especially in some of the big rough thermals we get
> here, you tend to get a wing dropping quite easily.
>
> As Bob commented - it is a pilot skill thing. I can, and do, fly the
> Cirrus quite close to the limit and get the best climb rates etc. When I
> do that I am aware that the departure from controlled flight is quite
> rapid - and if I am not paying attention I will have a wing drop.
> Recovery is instant - just unload the wing. Smoothly approached there is
> a distinct turbulent warning - especially as the wake hits the elevator.
>
> So - the Cirrus is a precise aircraft to fly, but can be more work than
> some others. e.g. you can't take your hand off the stick for more than a
> second or so (Phugoid is divergent and the elevator is effectively
> mounted on a gimbal), and will reliably reward ham fisted insensitive
> control inputs with a spin. The point I was trying to make is that some
> aircraft require more attention. Which can contribute to impaired
> capability - which is less safe.
>

I remember that my briefing for my first flight in a Std Cirrus
included the words "If it feels as though the controls are not
connected up, don't worry about it". It does indeed have very light
stick forces, but this makes it less tiring to fly and you only have
to think a turn and it will do it. I can fly my Cirrus all day, but I
get tired after flying something with heavier controls, especially big
two-seaters, after about 3 or 4 hours.

Derek C

[Bruce]

On 2010/07/21 12:57 PM, Derek C wrote:
> On Jul 21, 9:56 am, > wrote:
>> Hi Derek
>>
>> You are correct - I am amplifying the difference. As I said I actually
>> prefer the handling on the Cirrus. BUT - I learned, on the Cirrus, to
>> fly with a very light touch on the stick. There is virtually no force
>> feedback on pitch. Especially in some of the big rough thermals we get
>> here, you tend to get a wing dropping quite easily.
>>
>> As Bob commented - it is a pilot skill thing. I can, and do, fly the
>> Cirrus quite close to the limit and get the best climb rates etc. When I
>> do that I am aware that the departure from controlled flight is quite
>> rapid - and if I am not paying attention I will have a wing drop.
>> Recovery is instant - just unload the wing. Smoothly approached there is
>> a distinct turbulent warning - especially as the wake hits the elevator.
>>
>> So - the Cirrus is a precise aircraft to fly, but can be more work than
>> some others. e.g. you can't take your hand off the stick for more than a
>> second or so (Phugoid is divergent and the elevator is effectively
>> mounted on a gimbal), and will reliably reward ham fisted insensitive
>> control inputs with a spin. The point I was trying to make is that some
>> aircraft require more attention. Which can contribute to impaired
>> capability - which is less safe.
>>
>
> I remember that my briefing for my first flight in a Std Cirrus
> included the words "If it feels as though the controls are not
> connected up, don't worry about it". It does indeed have very light
> stick forces, but this makes it less tiring to fly and you only have
> to think a turn and it will do it. I can fly my Cirrus all day, but I
> get tired after flying something with heavier controls, especially big
> two-seaters, after about 3 or 4 hours.
>
> Derek C
>
Indeed - I hate the feeling of holding something embedded in a pot of
porridge.
I have had the moment half way up the winch launch of feeling there are
no controls connected. It happens after a day spent wrestling ancient
two seaters around. Then you get in the Cirrus and everything is so light.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Dave Nadler]

On Jul 20, 10:35*am, EvValentin808
> wrote:
> Can anyone give me a list of forgiving sailplanes out there. I know some
> like the Schweizers, *Rudolf Kaiser's designs(Schleicher K-series) and
> the Discus... Any other to list?
>
> --
> EvValentin808

Ignore all the nastiness below, and get yourself a late-model LS-4.
Earlier models almost as nice but the automatic
hookups are more forgiving.
You'll love it !
Best Regards, Dave

[guy]

I agree with Dave.
Get an LS4.
It has such a solid feeling when flying and is very very stable.
The airbrake/gear control interlock is a nice feature also.
Guy

[jcarlyle]

I'll chime in for the ASW-19. I'd tried to get a LS-4, but couldn't
find one at the time. The ASW-19 was described to me by a multi-time
US champion as 98% of the LS-4 at 75% of the price. The only potential
downside is the CG hook for aerotowing, but truthfully, I never had a
problem with it.

If you can't find a ASW-19 or a LS-4, and you can swing the extra
cash, there are a number of LS-8s for sale on Wings & Wheels right
now. I can attest that they are nice, easy to fly aircraft, too, plus
they have incredible performance for when you start flying contests.

-John