ASW20 or LS6 [Archive] - AviationBanter

Mike the Strike

January 31st 11, 02:19 AM

On Jan 30, 6:10*pm, Tim > wrote:
> On Jan 30, 7:06*pm, binks > wrote:
>
> > I am looking to purchase my first glider. I have been looking at the
> > ASW20 and the LS6. Any suggestions on which glider would be the best
> > all around? I have heard that the LS6 has a narrow cockpit. I am 6'2"
> > 200 lbs. and would be wearing a parachute. Also heard that the ASW20
> > can be a little unforgiving to the uninitiated in the spin department.
> > Both seem to have very similar performance data. *All that being said
> > it is appearing to me it may be Ford vs Chevy
>
> LS6 is the best handling ship I've ever flown. I got in one in the
> Southern French Alps and flew in the first World Grand Prix with zero
> hours in type and felt like I could do anything I needed with the
> ship. Given the random and weak weather, I had to do some pretty
> marginal things and it Never bit me :-) Unfortunately, "Z27" met a sad
> fate a few years later in the French Alps. :-(
>
> Tim McAllister EY

I think the spin reputation of the ASW-20 is a bit undeserved. Mine
behaved perfectly predictably once I got the CG forward of the aft
limit where the previous owner had left it! The LS-6 does have a
narrower cockpit, but this should only be a problem if you have really
broad shoulders. I suggest you try both before deciding. There isn't
much difference in performance between the two.

Mike

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

January 31st 11, 02:57 AM

On 1/30/2011 5:06 PM, binks wrote:
> I am looking to purchase my first glider. I have been looking at the
> ASW20 and the LS6. Any suggestions on which glider would be the best
> all around? I have heard that the LS6 has a narrow cockpit. I am 6'2"
> 200 lbs. and would be wearing a parachute. Also heard that the ASW20
> can be a little unforgiving to the uninitiated in the spin department.
> Both seem to have very similar performance data. All that being said
> it is appearing to me it may be Ford vs Chevy

I suggest it hinge on glider and trailer condition, and price. If you
plan to land in short fields over trees, go for the ASW 20. The landing
flaps are awesome. If you can find an ASW 20 B/C, you also get automatic
hookup elevator and a great disk brake.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

jcarlyle

January 31st 11, 03:17 AM

I've flown the standard class version of both those gliders, ie, the
ASW-19 and the LS-8. I'm 5'11" and 200 lbs, wear a parachute, and am
long in the torso.

Regarding the LS6, you probably won't fit in if you use a chair type
parachute, but a backpack type will work fine. If your torso is
average length, your height shouldn't be a problem - but if you have a
long torso you might not have enough head room. Your upper arms are
what is going to hit the sides of the canopy rail - if you have thick,
muscular arms you might not fit, but if you're average it'll be fine.

Don't make the mistake of making the trailer type and condition
subservient to the plane. A good trailer makes assembly and retrieves
a joy, a bad one could make you fly less often and forgo doing XC.
Condition of the gel coat and the instrument package is also a
consideration.

Personally, after experiencing the handling and feel of the LS8 I
wouldn't give it up to buy another Schleicher. Don't get me wrong,
Schleicher builds a fine glider - but it just doesn't compare to the
way the Rolladen Schneider flies.

-John

binks wrote:
> I am looking to purchase my first glider. I have been looking at the
> ASW20 and the LS6. Any suggestions on which glider would be the best
> all around? I have heard that the LS6 has a narrow cockpit. I am 6'2"
> 200 lbs. and would be wearing a parachute. Also heard that the ASW20
> can be a little unforgiving to the uninitiated in the spin department.
> Both seem to have very similar performance data. All that being said
> it is appearing to me it may be Ford vs Chevy

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

January 31st 11, 04:04 AM

On 1/30/2011 7:17 PM, jcarlyle wrote:

>
> Personally, after experiencing the handling and feel of the LS8 I
> wouldn't give it up to buy another Schleicher. Don't get me wrong,
> Schleicher builds a fine glider - but it just doesn't compare to the
> way the Rolladen Schneider flies.

You shouldn't judge Schleicher by comparing your experience in the
ASW-19 and the LS-8. They are at least a generation apart - instead,
compare the 8 to the ASW 24. The ASW 20 has a tremendous reputation for
fine handling, every bit as good as the LS6, and many would argue it's
better. Those bendy wings make it a delight in rough conditions, too.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

January 31st 11, 04:15 AM

On 1/30/2011 8:04 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 1/30/2011 7:17 PM, jcarlyle wrote:
>
>>
>> Personally, after experiencing the handling and feel of the LS8 I
>> wouldn't give it up to buy another Schleicher. Don't get me wrong,
>> Schleicher builds a fine glider - but it just doesn't compare to the
>> way the Rolladen Schneider flies.
>
> You shouldn't judge Schleicher by comparing your experience in the
> ASW-19 and the LS-8. They are at least a generation apart - instead,
> compare the 8 to the ASW 24. The ASW 20 has a tremendous reputation for
> fine handling, every bit as good as the LS6, and many would argue it's
> better. Those bendy wings make it a delight in rough conditions, too.

And I should've pointed out the ASW-19 is NOT the std class version of
the ASW 20. It was an entirely new flapped design with a smaller, higher
aspect ratio, thinner wing. The std class version is the Pegasus, built
in France.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

KevinFinke

January 31st 11, 06:28 AM

"The std class version is the Pegasus, built in France."

That's not really true Eric. While the Pegasus fuselage is descended
from the ASW-20, the wing is very different. Different planform and
airfoil. In fact, there has only ever been one true standard class
ASW-20, and that is the ship that I own. It's the ASW-24 prototype,
SN24000. It was built from ASW-20B molds, but was modified to be a
pure standard class ship. I don't have the use of flaps, but I have a
very interesting dual aileron setup. The inboard ailerons end about
1.5 meters from the wing root, and they throw differently than the
outboard. It's a lovely machine with a very fast roll rate. Next type
you voyage to Ephrata you'll have to look me up and I can show it to
you. As for it's performance, it will eat a Pegasus for lunch.

Back to the topic. I've not flown the LS-6, but I do know they are
world renowned for their handling and in my opinion it was the best of
the 80's 15m ships. You won't be dissapointed with either one from a
performance standpoint. I'd agree with the advice given so far. Find a
version of each that you can sit in. This should have more influence
than the other factors. You need to fit! Minor comfort issues can be
addressed with trial and error and pillows and cushions. If you fit
comfortably in both, pick the one with the best instruments and
trailer. I'm 6'3 and fit wonderfully in the 20. There is something
real nice about having a little extra shoulder room!

-Kevin

binks

January 31st 11, 12:48 PM

On Jan 31, 1:28*am, KevinFinke > wrote:
> "The std class version is the Pegasus, built in France."
>
> That's not really true Eric. While the Pegasus fuselage is descended
> from the ASW-20, the wing is very different. Different planform and
> airfoil. *In fact, there has only ever been one true standard class
> ASW-20, and that is the ship that I own. It's the ASW-24 prototype,
> SN24000. It was built from ASW-20B molds, but was modified to be a
> pure standard class ship. I don't have the use of flaps, but I have a
> very interesting dual aileron setup. The inboard ailerons end about
> 1.5 meters from the wing root, and they throw differently than the
> outboard. It's a lovely machine with a very fast roll rate. Next type
> you voyage to Ephrata you'll have to look me up and I can show it to
> you. As for it's performance, it will eat a Pegasus for lunch.
>
> Back to the topic. I've not flown the LS-6, but I do know they are
> world renowned for their handling and in my opinion it was the best of
> the 80's 15m ships. You won't be dissapointed with either one from a
> performance standpoint. I'd agree with the advice given so far. Find a
> version of each that you can sit in. This should have more influence
> than the other factors. You need to fit! Minor comfort issues can be
> addressed with trial and error and pillows and cushions. If you fit
> comfortably in both, pick the one with the best instruments and
> trailer. I'm 6'3 and fit wonderfully in the 20. There is something
> real nice about having a little extra shoulder room!
>
> -Kevin

Thanks for all the information, it has been a great help. I do plan to
sit in both before I make a decision

I did not mention that the ASW20 is the "B" model and has had the
wings refinished about 8 years ago. They only re-gelcoated the top
side and not the bottom side. the bottom side does have some gelcoat
cracking. I have not seen it yet to determine the condition of the
cracks. I do know that winglets were custom added at the same time
that the wings were refinished by the same company that did the
refinishing. From my conversations with the current owner of the LS6
the wings have been entirely regel coated a few years back (not sure
how long ago) but he does say that the gelcoat is in excellent
condition. Also it is the LS6A model. Both gliders have Cobra trailers
that appear to be in excellant condition

Nigel Cottrell[_2_]

January 31st 11, 12:57 PM

I owned an ASW 20F for some years which was ballasted to the aft C of G
limit ( the trim system isn't the greatest piece of design and forward C
of G just makes it worse) and it was a very docile forgiving glider. As
stated earlier the flap system is still the best ever devised which is
very comforting for field landings.
Having said that on the type discussion group Yahoo site there were
numerous posts suggesting that the later B and C models with the blown
wing are not as forgiving, although I have not flown either so can't
confirm if this is true.
As with all Schleicher products it is the quality of the refinish which
matters as the Vorgelat which they use is complete c**p and will have worn
out years ago.

At 04:15 31 January 2011, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>On 1/30/2011 8:04 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> On 1/30/2011 7:17 PM, jcarlyle wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Personally, after experiencing the handling and feel of the LS8 I
>>> wouldn't give it up to buy another Schleicher. Don't get me wrong,
>>> Schleicher builds a fine glider - but it just doesn't compare to the
>>> way the Rolladen Schneider flies.
>>
>> You shouldn't judge Schleicher by comparing your experience in the
>> ASW-19 and the LS-8. They are at least a generation apart - instead,
>> compare the 8 to the ASW 24. The ASW 20 has a tremendous reputation
for
>> fine handling, every bit as good as the LS6, and many would argue
it's
>> better. Those bendy wings make it a delight in rough conditions, too.
>
>And I should've pointed out the ASW-19 is NOT the std class version of
>the ASW 20. It was an entirely new flapped design with a smaller, higher

>aspect ratio, thinner wing. The std class version is the Pegasus, built
>in France.
>
>--
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>email me)
>

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

January 31st 11, 01:41 PM

On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 18:19:41 -0800, Mike the Strike wrote:

> I think the spin reputation of the ASW-20 is a bit undeserved. Mine
> behaved perfectly predictably once I got the CG forward of the aft limit
> where the previous owner had left it! The LS-6 does have a narrower
> cockpit, but this should only be a problem if you have really broad
> shoulders. I suggest you try both before deciding. There isn't much
> difference in performance between the two.
>
Mine departed twice during roughly 45 degree banked thermalling turns at
around 45 kts in flap #3 (zero flap deflection). There was no buffet or
warning - it just went. I wondered if it was just something my glider
did. I also thought it might be due to micro-turbulence in those two
thermals, so I tried repeating the turn near home at the end of the day
at the same and at even lower airspeeds she just flew smoothly round the
circle.

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

[email protected]

January 31st 11, 02:29 PM

On Jan 30, 8:06*pm, binks > wrote:
> I am looking to purchase my first glider. I have been looking at the
> ASW20 and the LS6. Any suggestions on which glider would be the best
> all around? I have heard that the LS6 has a narrow cockpit. I am 6'2"
> 200 lbs. and would be wearing a parachute. Also heard that the ASW20
> can be a little unforgiving to the uninitiated in the spin department.
> Both seem to have very similar performance data. *All that being said
> it is appearing to me it may be Ford vs Chevy

You really can't go wrong with either one. "20's have greater landing
flap capability and more available performance increasing options than
the '6 but the real deciding factor for you will be condition and how
long till major attention will be needed to the finish.
Likeluy both have good trailers, but that is also a consideration.
'20's , when flown in a reasonable CG position , and with modern seals
on the wings, are quite benign in the stall - spin issue.
Good luck with your choice.
UH

JJ Sinclair[_2_]

January 31st 11, 02:49 PM

On Jan 30, 5:06*pm, binks > wrote:
> I am looking to purchase my first glider. I have been looking at the
> ASW20 and the LS6. Any suggestions on which glider would be the best
> all around? I have heard that the LS6 has a narrow cockpit. I am 6'2"
> 200 lbs. and would be wearing a parachute. Also heard that the ASW20
> can be a little unforgiving to the uninitiated in the spin department.
> Both seem to have very similar performance data. *All that being said
> it is appearing to me it may be Ford vs Chevy

I have owned and loved both, The 6A has a soft wing, like the 20, but
you will find the 20B wing to be stiff, but then it has a disc brake.
The 6 has a sweet spot at about 65 knots that feels like she will go
forever. The wing on the 6 is attached at zero incidence and that
makes the nose a bit high when flying slow (on tow or when
thermalling), not a problem, just feels different at first. If I were
making the decision, I'd go for the 6, if the finish was good.
JJ

Andy[_1_]

January 31st 11, 02:50 PM

On Jan 30, 11:28*pm, KevinFinke > wrote:
> *In fact, there has only ever been one true standard class
> ASW-20, and that is the ship that I own. It's the ASW-24 prototype,
> SN24000. It was built from ASW-20B molds, but was modified to be a
> pure standard class ship.

That glider was based at El Tiro, AZ, for a while. When the owner
told me it was an ASW-24 I wondered what he had been smoking until he
told be the history.

Andy

Jim Archer[_2_]

January 31st 11, 05:46 PM

Jonathon May[_2_]

January 31st 11, 08:16 PM

At 17:46 31 January 2011, Jim Archer wrote:
>On Jan 30, 6:06=A0pm, binks wrote:
>> I am looking to purchase my first glider. I have been looking at the
>> ASW20 and the LS6. Any suggestions on which glider would be the best
>> all around? I have heard that the LS6 has a narrow cockpit. I am
6'2"
>> 200 lbs. and would be wearing a parachute. Also heard that the ASW20
>> can be a little unforgiving to the uninitiated in the spin department.
>> Both seem to have very similar performance data. =A0All that being
said
>> it is appearing to me it may be Ford vs Chevy
>
>I've flown only the LS-6. I'm 6'0" 215 with fairly broad shoulders,
>long torso, and loved the snug but comfortable fit. Super sweet flying
>ship. All other things equal I'd probably buy a 6 over a 20 if I had
>the chance, but I've not flown a 20. With a glider over 15 years old
>I'd likely buy the glider with the best finish.
>

You don't say how much experience you have, but both the ASW 20 and LS6
are flapped, and not suitable for low hours pilots.I have flown
neither,but I think if you spin either your first action is to select
negative flap.Otherwise your risk exceeding max flap speed,and if you
don't rip them off,as soon as you land you are in for an expensive trip
to the repair man.
Buy an LS8,put an extra 1000hrs in your log book and think again.
If you are a 1000hr pilot already I take back the sactimonious comments
,but remember,this is an open forum and many of your readers have more
ambition than experience.
Jon

Roger Burghall

January 31st 11, 08:32 PM

At 13:41 31 January 2011, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 18:19:41 -0800, Mike the Strike wrote:
>
>> I think the spin reputation of the ASW-20 is a bit undeserved. Mine
>> behaved perfectly predictably once I got the CG forward of the aft
limit
>> where the previous owner had left it! The LS-6 does have a narrower
>> cockpit, but this should only be a problem if you have really broad
>> shoulders. I suggest you try both before deciding. There isn't much
>> difference in performance between the two.
>>
>Mine departed twice during roughly 45 degree banked thermalling turns at

>around 45 kts in flap #3 (zero flap deflection). There was no buffet or
>warning - it just went. I wondered if it was just something my glider
>did. I also thought it might be due to micro-turbulence in those two
>thermals, so I tried repeating the turn near home at the end of the day
>at the same and at even lower airspeeds she just flew smoothly round the

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

Mine stalls at 40 knots wings level. At 45 degrees it would therefore
stall at 48 knots, and (even assuming your bank was a bit less than it
looked) you were already stalled.

I have found its handling impeccable (well, so far!) but wouldn't thermal
below 50 with neutral flap. 45 is too slow even with thermalling flap.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

January 31st 11, 11:14 PM

On 1/30/2011 10:28 PM, KevinFinke wrote:
> "The std class version is the Pegasus, built in France."
>
> That's not really true Eric. While the Pegasus fuselage is descended
> from the ASW-20, the wing is very different. Different planform and
> airfoil. In fact, there has only ever been one true standard class
> ASW-20, and that is the ship that I own. It's the ASW-24 prototype,
> SN24000. It was built from ASW-20B molds, but was modified to be a
> pure standard class ship. I don't have the use of flaps, but I have a
> very interesting dual aileron setup. The inboard ailerons end about
> 1.5 meters from the wing root, and they throw differently than the
> outboard. It's a lovely machine with a very fast roll rate. Next type
> you voyage to Ephrata you'll have to look me up and I can show it to
> you. As for it's performance, it will eat a Pegasus for lunch.

You are correct, the Pegasus is not an ASW 20 with the flaps glued to
the wing. It does have the same wing area, bendiness, and the same
planform (at least, it appears to be the same), so I'd call it at least
a very close relative of the ASW 20. The one I flew felt just like my
ASW 20.

On the other hand, the ASW 19 and ASW 20 are very different gliders, and
it is a mistake to use the 19 as a stand-in for the handling of the ASW 20.

I'd love to look at SN2400 - that's new to me!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

January 31st 11, 11:22 PM

On 1/31/2011 4:57 AM, Nigel Cottrell wrote:
> I owned an ASW 20F for some years which was ballasted to the aft C of G
> limit ( the trim system isn't the greatest piece of design and forward C
> of G just makes it worse) and it was a very docile forgiving glider. As
> stated earlier the flap system is still the best ever devised which is
> very comforting for field landings.
> Having said that on the type discussion group Yahoo site there were
> numerous posts suggesting that the later B and C models with the blown
> wing are not as forgiving, although I have not flown either so can't
> confirm if this is true.

I'm under the opposite impression! I found it very forgiving. My
personal experience is 1500 hours in an ASW 20C and never a stall, spin,
or even an incipient spin that wasn't intentional. That's with the CG
about 75% of the range.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

January 31st 11, 11:27 PM

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:32:43 +0000, Roger Burghall wrote:

> At 13:41 31 January 2011, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 18:19:41 -0800, Mike the Strike wrote:
>>
>>> I think the spin reputation of the ASW-20 is a bit undeserved. Mine
>>> behaved perfectly predictably once I got the CG forward of the aft
> limit
>>> where the previous owner had left it! The LS-6 does have a narrower
>>> cockpit, but this should only be a problem if you have really broad
>>> shoulders. I suggest you try both before deciding. There isn't much
>>> difference in performance between the two.
>>>
>>Mine departed twice during roughly 45 degree banked thermalling turns at
>
>>around 45 kts in flap #3 (zero flap deflection). There was no buffet or
>>warning - it just went. I wondered if it was just something my glider
>>did. I also thought it might be due to micro-turbulence in those two
>>thermals, so I tried repeating the turn near home at the end of the day
>>at the same and at even lower airspeeds she just flew smoothly round the
>
>>circle.
>>
>>
>>--
>>martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>>gregorie. | Essex, UK
>>org |
>>
>>
> Mine stalls at 40 knots wings level. At 45 degrees it would therefore
> stall at 48 knots, and (even assuming your bank was a bit less than it
> looked) you were already stalled.
>
> I have found its handling impeccable (well, so far!) but wouldn't
> thermal below 50 with neutral flap. 45 is too slow even with thermalling
> flap.
>
Mine was better at low speed than that - was quite happy at 42 kt in
thermal flap and was generally well-behaved in a thermal between 45 and
50 kts in zero flap (#3) - I generally thermaled in zero flap because it
felt so much more responsive: IIRC it stalled at around 37-38. Certainly
it wouldn't sit down above 34 kts in landing flap.

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

Andreas Maurer

January 31st 11, 11:28 PM

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:16:26 +0000, Jonathon May
> wrote:

>You don't say how much experience you have, but both the ASW 20 and LS6
>are flapped, and not suitable for low hours pilots.I have flown
>neither,but I think if you spin either your first action is to select
>negative flap.Otherwise your risk exceeding max flap speed,and if you
>don't rip them off,as soon as you land you are in for an expensive trip
>to the repair man.
>Buy an LS8,put an extra 1000hrs in your log book and think again.

1.000 hrs before flying a flapped ship?
LMAO!

In my club 100 hrs total time and a completed 300 km task were the
requirement to fly the ASW-20L. Perfectly adequate.

People were flying Astir, ASW-15 and DG-300 before the ASW-20.

Andreas

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

January 31st 11, 11:30 PM

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:14:56 -0800, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> On the other hand, the ASW 19 and ASW 20 are very different gliders, and
> it is a mistake to use the 19 as a stand-in for the handling of the ASW
> 20.
>
However, if you're thinking of buying a 19, 20 or Pegase and want to try
the cockpit for size before making the trip to see the glider, its worth
remembering that all three cockpits are near as dammit identical.

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

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

January 31st 11, 11:52 PM

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:16:26 +0000, Jonathon May wrote:

> You don't say how much experience you have, but both the ASW 20 and LS6
> are flapped, and not suitable for low hours pilots.I have flown
> neither,but I think if you spin either your first action is to select
> negative flap.Otherwise your risk exceeding max flap speed,and if you
> don't rip them off,as soon as you land you are in for an expensive trip
> to the repair man.
>
Agreed. The 20s POH says that the first recovery action is to push the
flap fully negative and that the glider will often auto-recover with no
further action by the pilot. Height loss and speed gain are impressive: I
entered an incipient spin at 45 kts, stopped rotation in a 1/4 turn and
then pulled out, returning to level flight 300 ft lower and with 80 kts
on the clock.

You're quite busy on take-off too: the POH says to start the run with one
notch of negative flap for better aileron control. The ailerons start to
bite about 30 kts and you need to move to neutral flap at that point
because it won't lift off in negative flap, but you NEED to be in neutral
before you hit 40 or it will pop up when you move the flap lever. If you
miss neutral and hit thermal the first few launches, leave it there or
you'll likely to find yourself way below the tow plane.

The other thing that nobody has mentioned yet applies to both gliders.
Learning to fly a flapped glider is similar to learning to drive in an
automatic car and then transitioning to a manual shift. By that I mean
that operating the flaps is easy, but being in the right flap setting at
all times and getting it engrained that the flap lever is your primary
speed control takes time: it took me 30-35 hours to get to the point
where flap use became something I didn't need to think about before doing
it. I had nearly 300 hours by the time I flew a '20, with at least half
of than on the club's Pegase and Discus.

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

Tony V

February 1st 11, 12:01 AM

I've owned a "6-b" for 9 years now and just love the way it handles.
Cross wind take offs are a breeze (pun intended) - even with the CG
hook.The durned glider just tracks straight - a far cry from the Pegasus
that I had a share in that seemed to want to head for the side lines
whenever there was a hint of a cross wind. I'm 5'9'' and 185 lbs and it
is a bit snug but I kind of like that as it sort of makes you feel like
you're part of the machine. The "6-b" (and 'c') has a stiff wing and you
feel that in the ride but you get used to it. Sometimes I do wish that
it had landing flaps like the '20' for short fields.

Tony
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

Bob Whelan[_3_]

February 1st 11, 01:34 AM

On 1/31/2011 1:16 PM, Jonathon May wrote:

> You don't say how much experience you have, but both the ASW 20 and LS6
> are flapped, and not suitable for low hours pilots.

Having transitioned - safely & entirely uneventfully (in the negative sense of
things) - from 2-33s/1-26s to a no-negative-flap, spoiler-less (i.e. large
deflection landing flaps-only), 'in-between'/non-nose tow-hooked single-seat
sailplane, with a total of 128+ glider-only hours logged, I would suggest the
above position may be just a tad overstated.

How one mentally approaches flaps and their use (or, non-use, as the
transitioning-case may be) is, I believe, vastly more important than seeking
comfort in hard-n-fast 'stick-time rules.'

For example, if the flaps are camber-changing-only (e.g. LS-6), you can simply
set/leave them at zero until such time as you feel comfortable experimenting
with them. Both ships permit use of spoilers to assist initial aileron
response if aero-towing (just as a transitionee might already be doing in
unflapped glass). Further, Schleicher's '20 (and Rolladen-Schneider's LS-6)
allow (insist-on) the use of spoilers as the primary glideslope control
device. (Kinda-sorta related, just because the ship being transitioning to has
retractable gear is no reason to believe one *must* retract or cycle the gear
on early flights.)

No harm in using the KISS philosophy of transitioning...

If you die on your first flight in such a ship using such a technique, perhaps
small comfort can be (briefly) obtained from the knowledge flap (mis-)use
wasn't the proximate cause of death. :-)

I have flown
> neither,but I think if you spin either your first action is to select
> negative flap.

Again, this advice may be OK (as far as it goes), perhaps even in the Pilot's
Operating Handbook (I don't know)...but not without some caveats. The devil -
as always - is in the details...

The first *2* flapped ships I transitioned to *had* no negative flaps (or, any
spoilers, either). And while in neither one did I ever experience an
inadvertent 'departure from controlled flight', in both the best (IMHO)
potential-overspeed-avoidance device in their bag of tricks had such a thing
happened and startled/scared me into not 'simply'/immediately reducing the AoA
(which worked every time I used it) would have been to *'2nd-immediately'*
roll/pump on ALL the flaps. Sure this would have had the short-term effect of
increasing the wing's effective AoA..but so what, as neither ship could
'reasonably' be induced to exceed max-flap/maneuvering speeds with 'em full
down. It would've bought time to sort things out without eating vast vertical
gobs of airspace or zooming above maneuvering speed.

So - is it preferable to 'inadvertently spin down through a thermal gaggle' in
an AS-W 20 and recover at high-ish speeds with negative flap, or, to spiral
down 'perhaps somewhat stalled' but vertically somewhat slower with full
flaps? (This is not a trick question.)

My vote is to avoid the situation in the first place. This'll work in the
LS-6, too. :-)

Regards,
Bob W.

P.S. Apologies for treading so far out onto this particular discussional ice,
but I must've 'felt a need'...!

binks

February 1st 11, 03:17 AM

On Jan 31, 8:34*pm, Bob Whelan > wrote:
> On 1/31/2011 1:16 PM, Jonathon May wrote:
>
> > You don't say how much experience you have, but both the ASW 20 and LS6
> > are flapped, and not suitable for low hours pilots.
>
> Having transitioned - safely & entirely uneventfully (in the negative sense of
> things) - from 2-33s/1-26s to a no-negative-flap, spoiler-less (i.e. large
> deflection landing flaps-only), 'in-between'/non-nose tow-hooked single-seat
> sailplane, with a total of 128+ glider-only hours logged, I would suggest the
> above position may be just a tad overstated.
>
> How one mentally approaches flaps and their use (or, non-use, as the
> transitioning-case may be) is, I believe, vastly more important than seeking
> comfort in hard-n-fast 'stick-time rules.'
>
> For example, if the flaps are camber-changing-only (e.g. LS-6), you can simply
> set/leave them at zero until such time as you feel comfortable experimenting
> with them. Both ships permit use of spoilers to assist initial aileron
> response if aero-towing (just as a transitionee might already be doing in
> unflapped glass). Further, Schleicher's '20 (and Rolladen-Schneider's LS-6)
> allow (insist-on) the use of spoilers as the primary glideslope control
> device. (Kinda-sorta related, just because the ship being transitioning to has
> retractable gear is no reason to believe one *must* retract or cycle the gear
> on early flights.)
>
> No harm in using the KISS philosophy of transitioning...
>
> If you die on your first flight in such a ship using such a technique, perhaps
> small comfort can be (briefly) obtained from the knowledge flap (mis-)use
> wasn't the proximate cause of death. :-)
>
> I have flown
>
> > neither,but I think if you spin either your first action is to select
> > negative flap.
>
> Again, this advice may be OK (as far as it goes), perhaps even in the Pilot's
> Operating Handbook (I don't know)...but not without some caveats. The devil -
> as always - is in the details...
>
> The first *2* flapped ships I transitioned to *had* no negative flaps (or, any
> spoilers, either). And while in neither one did I ever experience an
> inadvertent 'departure from controlled flight', in both the best (IMHO)
> potential-overspeed-avoidance device in their bag of tricks had such a thing
> happened and startled/scared me into not 'simply'/immediately reducing the AoA
> (which worked every time I used it) would have been to *'2nd-immediately'*
> roll/pump on ALL the flaps. Sure this would have had the short-term effect of
> increasing the wing's effective AoA..but so what, as neither ship could
> 'reasonably' be induced to exceed max-flap/maneuvering speeds with 'em full
> down. It would've bought time to sort things out without eating vast vertical
> gobs of airspace or zooming above maneuvering speed.
>
> So - is it preferable to 'inadvertently spin down through a thermal gaggle' in
> an AS-W 20 and recover at high-ish speeds with negative flap, or, to spiral
> down 'perhaps somewhat stalled' but vertically somewhat slower with full
> flaps? (This is not a trick question.)
>
> My vote is to avoid the situation in the first place. This'll work in the
> LS-6, too. :-)
>
> Regards,
> Bob W.
>
> P.S. Apologies for treading so far out onto this particular discussional ice,
> but I must've 'felt a need'...!

Well said it is always best to avoid the situation in the first place,
but there is also no substitute for knowing proper
recovery technique when it does happen.
To answer Johns question about my experience, let me first say that I
have just under 100 hours in the 2-33.
That being said I have no intention to go out ,buy a high performance
glass ship, and go soaring with the
thought that I will just get the hang of it in a few hours of flight.
My intentions are to purchase the glider now during the winter months
to "hopefully" fly after at least 6 more months of active gliding
starting in the spring. I was planning to get a few more hours in the
2-33 first, especially after 6 months of no flying(it snows up here in
northern Indiana),I would want to be refreshed in the trainer
.. After that I plan to transition to the Clubs 1-36 glider for a while
and then get some additional hours in a 2 place glass ship. Not sure
when I will actually be ,ready to fly the new one, I don't know how I
could put a minimum hours requirement on it. I was leaving it up to my
confidence level and abilities to determine when the time would be
right. We have some excellent instructors at our glider port who will
always keep a watchful eye out.
I am very competitive and welcome the increased complexity and
challenge of a flapped ship. I am looking forward to cross county
flights and eventually competition. Am I sound in my thinking, or am I
out in left field?

Mike Ash

February 1st 11, 04:05 AM

In article >,
Martin Gregorie > wrote:

> You're quite busy on take-off too: the POH says to start the run with one
> notch of negative flap for better aileron control. The ailerons start to
> bite about 30 kts and you need to move to neutral flap at that point
> because it won't lift off in negative flap

Not so! Guess how I know.... It took considerably longer to lift off
than usual, and was *weird* on tow until I finally pulled my head out
and realized I was in the wrong flap setting, but it does work.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Michel Talon

February 1st 11, 09:16 AM

Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:16:26 +0000, Jonathon May
> > wrote:
>
>
> >You don't say how much experience you have, but both the ASW 20 and LS6
> >are flapped, and not suitable for low hours pilots.I have flown
> >neither,but I think if you spin either your first action is to select
> >negative flap.Otherwise your risk exceeding max flap speed,and if you
> >don't rip them off,as soon as you land you are in for an expensive trip
> >to the repair man.
> >Buy an LS8,put an extra 1000hrs in your log book and think again.
>
> 1.000 hrs before flying a flapped ship?
> LMAO!
>
> In my club 100 hrs total time and a completed 300 km task were the
> requirement to fly the ASW-20L. Perfectly adequate.

In my club it was similar. After a 300 km task (the gliders were mostly
pegases for that) you could take an LS3 or similar flapped gliders, or
a janus.

--

Michel TALON

Andy[_10_]

February 1st 11, 10:31 AM

On Jan 31, 12:16*pm, Jonathon May > wrote:

> You don't say how much experience you have, but both the ASW 20 and LS6
> are flapped, and not suitable for low hours pilots.

Flapped glass ships are more slippery to be sure. I watched a friend
pull the wings off a 301 Libelle when the airspeed got away from her
shortly after putting it in negative flap on her first flight.

My first flight in a flapped ship was three years later in an LS-3. I
was 18 and had 79 total hours. It was a dream to fly with no bad
habits. Four years after that I got into a Ventus A with a grand total
of 155 hours under my belt. It was much more of a handful, especially
with the 16.6 meter tips.

I suppose it's mostly about knowing when you're ready and taking
proper care - regardless of what you hear on r.a.s. If you're not
sure, get some dual time with an instructor who has high performance
glass experience.

9B

Don Johnstone[_4_]

February 1st 11, 12:31 PM

At 01:06 31 January 2011, binks wrote:
>I am looking to purchase my first glider. I have been looking at the
>ASW20 and the LS6. Any suggestions on which glider would be the best
>all around? I have heard that the LS6 has a narrow cockpit. I am 6'2"
>200 lbs. and would be wearing a parachute. Also heard that the ASW20
>can be a little unforgiving to the uninitiated in the spin department.
>Both seem to have very similar performance data. All that being said
>it is appearing to me it may be Ford vs Chevy
>
Do not concern yourself over the flaps issue, it is purely a matter of
training and the flaps on the ASW20 are very intuative.
To answer your question.
Do you want a well harmonised, does what it says on the tin, good
performance glider built by Schleicher or a perfomance glider build by
someone who went out of business?
Do you want a glider where the spares are easy to obtain with no
restrictions, you only pay for the spares and not for the right to buy the
spares you need? If the answer is yes ASW20
OR do you want to have to pay for the right to purchase spares with the
possibility that you will be told, having purchased that right, that the
spares are not available? If yes to this go LS
Do you want to be able to order a service manual or flight manual for your
glider and only pay the cost of the manual? If so ASW20
Do you want to be forced to pay a large amount every year, which will give
you the right ot have a new manual, which may only be amended in the number
on the title page? If so Go LS
Do you want genuine service from a long standing and helpful glider
manufacturer who gives you what you pay for? Go ASW20
If you don't mind paying out a large sum every year for something you may
never benefit from, go LS.
As a final note I have flown both and in the handling qualities there is
no contest, ASW20 every time. As far as performance is concerned on a
heaving day the LS probably has the edge purely because you can load more
water in it, whether this outweighs (pun intended) the pleasant
characteristics of Schleicher gliders is a matter of personal taste.

February 1st 11, 01:12 PM

On Jan 31, 10:17*pm, binks > wrote:
> Am I sound in my thinking, or am I
> out in left field?

You're in the front seat of a 2-33 looking for shortcuts that really
don't exist.

Modern glass ships aren't "hard" to fly, but they presume a sharp
pilot with some finesse that generally isn't learned in a barge like a
2-33. You don't need answers on r.a.s. (witness willing advice from
people who HAVEN'T FLOWN THESE SHIPS (that's a pet peeve)), you need a
coach. The ideal coach is a CFIG who can fly with you and has
experience in the general direction you are headed (XC, glass,
competition, record setting, whatever). There's been some good advice
given in this thread, also some complete crap. I remember well being
in your shoes and have nothing but encouragement to offer. Good luck!

-Evan Ludeman / T8 (ASW-20B)

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

February 1st 11, 01:47 PM

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:17:09 -0800, binks wrote:

> I am very competitive and welcome the increased complexity and challenge
> of a flapped ship. I am looking forward to cross county flights and
> eventually competition. Am I sound in my thinking, or am I out in left
> field?
>
I agree with Evan, but would also add that you should get some time in a
two seat glass ship before tackling a glass single seater. You'll learn a
lot about speed control from flying any of them. Good speed control is a
necessity because a flapped glider is much more slippery than you'll be
expecting.

The ASK-21 is a pussycat and very well behaved. Time in one would be good
preparation for the likes of baby Grobs, Juniors and Libelles.

Before tackling anything more slippery (Pegase, Discus, LS-6 or ASW-20),
a bit of time in a Grob G.103 would be useful. The G.103, unlike the
ASK-21, has a tendency to drop its nose and accelerate in turns.

BTW, I've flown all the types I've mentioned here and also have one
flight in a 2-33, so have some idea of how it handles and its dragginess.

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

Sarah[_2_]

February 1st 11, 03:10 PM

Well, I knew this would be a get-out-your-popcorn thread, and it did
not disappoint. You got a lot of good advice and some bad...

I'll chip in as an LS6 owner, who's never flown a '20.

The LS6 is another glider you wear rather than get in - space is
tight, for me especially headroom. There is a moment of
claustrophobia for me when the canopy first closes! I'm 5'10. You
may need to take out the backrest.

Easy to fly and land, with a couple points. That "0 incidence wing"
can be interesting on takeoff, as the roll seems to take forever. You
do not have to mess with negative flaps for aileron control though -
the full span flaperons are wonderful at all speeds. However I would
not want to try a 0-flap takeoff. The POH says +5 or +10 with water -
leave them so until after release. Speed control in the landing
pattern is important, so get some training in a slippery 2-place.

On Jan 30, 7:06*pm, binks > wrote:
> I am looking to purchase my first glider. I have been looking at the
> ASW20 and the LS6. Any suggestions on which glider would be the best
> all around? I have heard that the LS6 has a narrow cockpit. I am 6'2"
> 200 lbs. and would be wearing a parachute. Also heard that the ASW20
> can be a little unforgiving to the uninitiated in the spin department.
> Both seem to have very similar performance data. *All that being said
> it is appearing to me it may be Ford vs Chevy

Grider Pirate

February 1st 11, 03:37 PM

On Feb 1, 7:10*am, Sarah > wrote:
> Well, I knew this would be a get-out-your-popcorn thread, and it did
> not disappoint. *You got a lot of good advice and some bad...
>
> I'll chip in as an LS6 owner, who's never flown a '20.
>
> The LS6 is another glider you wear rather than get in - space is
> tight, for me especially headroom. *There is a moment of
> claustrophobia for me when the canopy first closes! * I'm 5'10. * You
> may need to take out the backrest.
>
> Easy to fly and land, with a couple points. *That "0 incidence wing"
> can be interesting on takeoff, as the roll seems to take forever. *You
> do not have to mess with negative flaps for aileron control though -
> the full span flaperons are wonderful at all speeds. *However I would
> not want to try a 0-flap takeoff. *The POH says +5 or +10 with water -
> leave them so until after release. * Speed control in the landing
> pattern is important, so get some training in a slippery 2-place.
>
> On Jan 30, 7:06*pm, binks > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I am looking to purchase my first glider. I have been looking at the
> > ASW20 and the LS6. Any suggestions on which glider would be the best
> > all around? I have heard that the LS6 has a narrow cockpit. I am 6'2"
> > 200 lbs. and would be wearing a parachute. Also heard that the ASW20
> > can be a little unforgiving to the uninitiated in the spin department.
> > Both seem to have very similar performance data. *All that being said
> > it is appearing to me it may be Ford vs Chevy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

+ a bunch on a flapped glider not likely killing you. When I bought
my Speed Astir, which doesn't handle nearly as nicely as the ASW 20 or
the LS6, I had 48 hours in a 2-33, 18 hours in a 1-26, 10 hours in a
Grob 103, and 1.8 hours in an LS4. I never had any issues. (until I
had over 200 hours in it, and got cocky!). The Speed Astir is another
glider you wear, which is a huge incentive for me to NOT gain weight,
as I'm at the upper limit of fitting right now, at 5'10" and 208 lbs.
Condition and trailers being equal (or close), I'd pick the ASW20,
mostly because DG has me worried about support.

binks

February 1st 11, 04:31 PM

On Feb 1, 10:10*am, Sarah > wrote:
> Well, I knew this would be a get-out-your-popcorn thread, and it did
> not disappoint. *You got a lot of good advice and some bad...
>
> I'll chip in as an LS6 owner, who's never flown a '20.
>
> The LS6 is another glider you wear rather than get in - space is
> tight, for me especially headroom. *There is a moment of
> claustrophobia for me when the canopy first closes! * I'm 5'10. * You
> may need to take out the backrest.
>
> Easy to fly and land, with a couple points. *That "0 incidence wing"
> can be interesting on takeoff, as the roll seems to take forever. *You
> do not have to mess with negative flaps for aileron control though -
> the full span flaperons are wonderful at all speeds. *However I would
> not want to try a 0-flap takeoff. *The POH says +5 or +10 with water -
> leave them so until after release. * Speed control in the landing
> pattern is important, so get some training in a slippery 2-place.
>
> On Jan 30, 7:06*pm, binks > wrote:
>
> > I am looking to purchase my first glider. I have been looking at the
> > ASW20 and the LS6. Any suggestions on which glider would be the best
> > all around? I have heard that the LS6 has a narrow cockpit. I am 6'2"
> > 200 lbs. and would be wearing a parachute. Also heard that the ASW20
> > can be a little unforgiving to the uninitiated in the spin department.
> > Both seem to have very similar performance data. *All that being said
> > it is appearing to me it may be Ford vs Chevy

I am popping the second bowl of popcorn as I write. I never expected
to get this kind of response. Thank-you to everyone for their comments
both pro and con, good or bad I like to hear it all. Helps to make a
better decision. I have a friend that has offered to take me up in his
2 place high performance glass ship and I will look forward to that
later this spring, along with some training in some other more high
performance gliders also. I will be looking at both gliders before I
make a final decision. I am aware of the spare parts and support
issues with the LS models ,but I do not believe that it will be the
deciding factor in my final choice. Probably will be the way I feel
after I have sat in and inspected the quality of each of the gliders.
Of course If I do not fit into the ls6 comfortably than I guess the
decision will be easy.
Dave (c62)

[email protected]

February 1st 11, 09:39 PM

On Feb 1, 11:31*am, binks > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 10:10*am, Sarah > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Well, I knew this would be a get-out-your-popcorn thread, and it did
> > not disappoint. *You got a lot of good advice and some bad...
>
> > I'll chip in as an LS6 owner, who's never flown a '20.
>
> > The LS6 is another glider you wear rather than get in - space is
> > tight, for me especially headroom. *There is a moment of
> > claustrophobia for me when the canopy first closes! * I'm 5'10. * You
> > may need to take out the backrest.
>
> > Easy to fly and land, with a couple points. *That "0 incidence wing"
> > can be interesting on takeoff, as the roll seems to take forever. *You
> > do not have to mess with negative flaps for aileron control though -
> > the full span flaperons are wonderful at all speeds. *However I would
> > not want to try a 0-flap takeoff. *The POH says +5 or +10 with water -
> > leave them so until after release. * Speed control in the landing
> > pattern is important, so get some training in a slippery 2-place.
>
> > On Jan 30, 7:06*pm, binks > wrote:
>
> > > I am looking to purchase my first glider. I have been looking at the
> > > ASW20 and the LS6. Any suggestions on which glider would be the best
> > > all around? I have heard that the LS6 has a narrow cockpit. I am 6'2"
> > > 200 lbs. and would be wearing a parachute. Also heard that the ASW20
> > > can be a little unforgiving to the uninitiated in the spin department..
> > > Both seem to have very similar performance data. *All that being said
> > > it is appearing to me it may be Ford vs Chevy
>
> I am popping the second bowl of popcorn as I write. I never expected
> to get this kind of response. Thank-you to everyone for their comments
> both pro and con, good or bad I like to hear it all. Helps to make a
> better decision. I have a friend that has offered to take me up in his
> 2 place high performance glass ship and I will look forward to that
> later this spring, along with some training in some other more high
> performance gliders also. I will be looking at both gliders before I
> make a final decision. I am aware of the spare parts and *support
> issues with the LS models ,but I do not believe that it will be the
> deciding factor in my final choice. Probably will be the way I feel
> after I have sat in and inspected the quality of each of the gliders.
> Of course If I do not fit into the ls6 comfortably than I guess the
> decision will be easy.
> Dave (c62)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm gonna be the grizzled old instructor that is going to suggest you
need to go very carefully.
I expect the folks I supervise to get at least 50 hrs in a 1-34(that's
what we have) before moving on to glass
of the type described. At the very least a good bit of time in some
intermediate ship.
These ships fly very nicely but they are heavier, twice as slippery,
all are tailwheel aircraft, virtually all have CG
hooks being aero towed, and all require very good stall- spin skills
compared to a 2-33 primary trainer.
To do this safely, you need a couple ships in between and a good
coach.
Good luck and take care
UH

Don Johnstone[_4_]

February 1st 11, 11:44 PM

At 21:39 01 February 2011, wrote:

>
>I'm gonna be the grizzled old instructor that is going to suggest you
>need to go very carefully.
>I expect the folks I supervise to get at least 50 hrs in a 1-34(that's
>what we have) before moving on to glass
>of the type described. At the very least a good bit of time in some
>intermediate ship.
>These ships fly very nicely but they are heavier, twice as slippery,
>all are tailwheel aircraft, virtually all have CG
>hooks being aero towed, and all require very good stall- spin skills
>compared to a 2-33 primary trainer.
>To do this safely, you need a couple ships in between and a good
>coach.
>Good luck and take care
>UH

Sorry to disagree in a way. Many people do their first solo in either an
ASW21 or Grob103, both could be described as fairly slippery compared to
the old wood and metal. Many other organisations accept that if you set
the level of training correctly, and train a person to fly the type he is
destined to fly then there should be no problem. Same applies to flaps,
there is no real difficulty there provided the right training is given.
I have long had issues with instructors who insist that people fly low
performance gliders before getting in the hot ships. If you set out to do
the proper training there is no reason to do that.
I too am a grizzled old instructor, been instructing for 46 years and in
the beginning all there was was wood or metal. That is no reason to force
those that have followed me to fly low performance first, I hope my
teaching is better than that.

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

February 2nd 11, 01:06 AM

On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 23:44:05 +0000, Don Johnstone wrote:

> Sorry to disagree in a way. Many people do their first solo in either an
> ASW21 or Grob103, both could be described as fairly slippery compared to
> the old wood and metal.
>
I agree with what you're saying, but question whether it is relevant to
the OP. He only has time in a 2-33 so far with the intention of
transitioning to 1-36 later this year after a little more 2-33 time and
then, when he's comfortable in the 1-36, moving onto flapped glass.

In UK terms that is pretty close to moving from a T.21b to an ASW-20 or
LS-6 via an SZD-30 Pirat: the 1-36 flies with similar speeds and glide
ratio to the Pirat but is probably draggier since it is lighter than a
Pirat (215kg vs 260 kg empty).

Disclaimer: I've only flown a 2-33 and a T.21b. I haven't flown a 1-36 or
a Pirat. All the above comparisons were made using numbers from the
Sailplane Directory.

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

Tony V

February 2nd 11, 01:51 AM

Don Johnstone wrote:

>
> Sorry to disagree in a way. Many people do their first solo in either an
> ASW21 or ....

Tuno

February 2nd 11, 03:07 AM

You mean BMW vs Mercedes, right?

-ted
BMW-29 "2NO"

JJ Sinclair[_2_]

February 2nd 11, 02:28 PM

*That "0 incidence wing"

Story time........On a long final glide with another LS-6, we were
dead even, 35 miles out, best L/D, no wind, no sink. My wingman said,
"watch this" and slowley but surely, he started gaining on me. When he
reached 20 feet above me, I asked, "OK what did you do?"
He replied, "I pulled in one notch of flap" (+5)
Why did that work? Because my ship with zero flap and slow speed, the
fuselage was slightly nose up, but the air hitting the ship with +5
flaps was straight into the relative wind.
I regret the day I sold the old girl,
JJ

Dan[_14_]

February 2nd 11, 05:19 PM

On Jan 30, 6:06*pm, binks > wrote:
> I am looking to purchase my first glider. I have been looking at the
> ASW20 and the LS6. Any suggestions on which glider would be the best
> all around? I have heard that the LS6 has a narrow cockpit. I am 6'2"
> 200 lbs. and would be wearing a parachute. Also heard that the ASW20
> can be a little unforgiving to the uninitiated in the spin department.
> Both seem to have very similar performance data. *All that being said
> it is appearing to me it may be Ford vs Chevy

Been away from the sport for a while. This is my first post since the
late 90s...

One day I traded my LS-6a for a friend's AS-W 20B for a day's flying.
He thought the '6 was "twitchy" and I thought the '20 was "heavy on
the controls". The '20 definitely had a lot more room in the cockpit
than the '6.

I agree with all that's been said regarding training and training for
the type of ship you'll be flying. I truly don't think it's wise for
an inexperienced pilot who's only flown the 2-33 to jump into such a
slick ship as either of the two you're considering. You will find
that it'll be off the runway before you know what's happening. It
will accelerate a lot quicker than you're used to, and will be a lot
less forgiving than a simpler ship.

It's not that either ship is hard to fly - in fact, both are easy.
The danger to a new pilot is the speed at which things change. Flaps
are not a problem if you know how to use them and where to set them
for the conditions of flight. Book knowledge is not enough - you have
to feel how to use them in tight situations.

My former partner was very experienced in gliders with about 500 hours
in our LS-6a. I watched him stall and spin at low altitude and
crash. Just a moment's inattention...

If you decide to get a flapped ship for your first glider, please pay
attention. Don't become complacent because it is easier to fly than a
2-33 (my opinion). If you fall asleep, it will bite you.

So, in answer to your original question about which is better... I'm
currently looking for my THIRD LS-6. I like the '6 so much that,
after the crash of my first, I found a new partner with one!

BruceGreeff

February 3rd 11, 12:33 PM

OK so I'll chip in some experience. Grizzled yes, instructor for the
last 5 or so years...

The experience is still new enough to remember the embarrassment when I
wanted to transition to the Std Cirrus I had purchased. Having learned
exclusively, and flown exclusively in wood , tube + rag (Bergfalke 2-55
if you must know) I found I had spent too much time in really draggy,
slow low performance ships. Result is that I took quite a few flights to
get my speed under control in something as forgiving as a Grob 103.

Lesson learned is that it is far better to learn on something a little
higher performance - but if you are solo in such a low performance old
lady - you will need some transition training.

What worked for me was about 10 launches in a Grob103 with an instructor
in the back. flying in different conditions and locations to get the
feel of the faster everything (accelleration, stall, pitch response) and
vastly better glide angle (hint - it is impossible to make a good
landing when you arrive over the threshold with full brakes and fifty
feet of clear air under your wheel...) Unfortunately in a draggy old
ship it is all too easy to develop bad habits. The sooner you fly higher
performance the easier I would assume to change them.

My first launch in the Cirrus was perfectly safe and I had less than 50
hours total time at that point. I made sure it was on a field I knew
well, in calm conditions - try to stack the risk factors in your favour
and fly the glider.

Now - My daughter is learning in the Grob103 and is not phased by the
performance, it is normal to her. At <10 hours her speed control is
excellent. She was disconcerted by how unresponsive the Bergie was when
I introduced her to it.

Cheers
Bruce

On 2011/02/02 1:44 AM, Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 21:39 01 February 2011, wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm gonna be the grizzled old instructor that is going to suggest you
>> need to go very carefully.
>> I expect the folks I supervise to get at least 50 hrs in a 1-34(that's
>> what we have) before moving on to glass
>> of the type described. At the very least a good bit of time in some
>> intermediate ship.
>> These ships fly very nicely but they are heavier, twice as slippery,
>> all are tailwheel aircraft, virtually all have CG
>> hooks being aero towed, and all require very good stall- spin skills
>> compared to a 2-33 primary trainer.
>> To do this safely, you need a couple ships in between and a good
>> coach.
>> Good luck and take care
>> UH
>
> Sorry to disagree in a way. Many people do their first solo in either an
> ASW21 or Grob103, both could be described as fairly slippery compared to
> the old wood and metal. Many other organisations accept that if you set
> the level of training correctly, and train a person to fly the type he is
> destined to fly then there should be no problem. Same applies to flaps,
> there is no real difficulty there provided the right training is given.
> I have long had issues with instructors who insist that people fly low
> performance gliders before getting in the hot ships. If you set out to do
> the proper training there is no reason to do that.
> I too am a grizzled old instructor, been instructing for 46 years and in
> the beginning all there was was wood or metal. That is no reason to force
> those that have followed me to fly low performance first, I hope my
> teaching is better than that.
>

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57

glider12321

February 3rd 11, 03:01 PM

I couldn't agree more that it's vital to get glass time. I learned to
fly in a 2-33 an was transitioned to a "hot" 1-26. After flying that
for about 80 hours I moved to another area found a new spot to fly. I
went up with an instructor in a G103. Speed control (and coordination)
were big issues. I remember going into the turn from base to final at
about 58 kts and coming out at 68+ kts ... too high and too fast. the
runway comes up quickly at that speed and with the instructor
"yelling" in the back things were happeing much faster than I was used
to. It took a bunch of flights to understand the energy that is
gererated by a slippery ship. After that the transition into a 102 was
easy. That was 30 years ago and I haven't been in a 2-33 since...

GK[_2_]

February 3rd 11, 06:17 PM

On Jan 31, 10:17*pm, binks > wrote:
> On Jan 31, 8:34*pm, Bob Whelan > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1/31/2011 1:16 PM, Jonathon May wrote:
>
> > > You don't say how much experience you have, but both the ASW 20 and LS6
> > > are flapped, and not suitable for low hours pilots.
>
> > Having transitioned - safely & entirely uneventfully (in the negative sense of
> > things) - from 2-33s/1-26s to a no-negative-flap, spoiler-less (i.e. large
> > deflection landing flaps-only), 'in-between'/non-nose tow-hooked single-seat
> > sailplane, with a total of 128+ glider-only hours logged, I would suggest the
> > above position may be just a tad overstated.
>
> > How one mentally approaches flaps and their use (or, non-use, as the
> > transitioning-case may be) is, I believe, vastly more important than seeking
> > comfort in hard-n-fast 'stick-time rules.'
>
> > For example, if the flaps are camber-changing-only (e.g. LS-6), you can simply
> > set/leave them at zero until such time as you feel comfortable experimenting
> > with them. Both ships permit use of spoilers to assist initial aileron
> > response if aero-towing (just as a transitionee might already be doing in
> > unflapped glass). Further, Schleicher's '20 (and Rolladen-Schneider's LS-6)
> > allow (insist-on) the use of spoilers as the primary glideslope control
> > device. (Kinda-sorta related, just because the ship being transitioning to has
> > retractable gear is no reason to believe one *must* retract or cycle the gear
> > on early flights.)
>
> > No harm in using the KISS philosophy of transitioning...
>
> > If you die on your first flight in such a ship using such a technique, perhaps
> > small comfort can be (briefly) obtained from the knowledge flap (mis-)use
> > wasn't the proximate cause of death. :-)
>
> > I have flown
>
> > > neither,but I think if you spin either your first action is to select
> > > negative flap.
>
> > Again, this advice may be OK (as far as it goes), perhaps even in the Pilot's
> > Operating Handbook (I don't know)...but not without some caveats. The devil -
> > as always - is in the details...
>
> > The first *2* flapped ships I transitioned to *had* no negative flaps (or, any
> > spoilers, either). And while in neither one did I ever experience an
> > inadvertent 'departure from controlled flight', in both the best (IMHO)
> > potential-overspeed-avoidance device in their bag of tricks had such a thing
> > happened and startled/scared me into not 'simply'/immediately reducing the AoA
> > (which worked every time I used it) would have been to *'2nd-immediately'*
> > roll/pump on ALL the flaps. Sure this would have had the short-term effect of
> > increasing the wing's effective AoA..but so what, as neither ship could
> > 'reasonably' be induced to exceed max-flap/maneuvering speeds with 'em full
> > down. It would've bought time to sort things out without eating vast vertical
> > gobs of airspace or zooming above maneuvering speed.
>
> > So - is it preferable to 'inadvertently spin down through a thermal gaggle' in
> > an AS-W 20 and recover at high-ish speeds with negative flap, or, to spiral
> > down 'perhaps somewhat stalled' but vertically somewhat slower with full
> > flaps? (This is not a trick question.)
>
> > My vote is to avoid the situation in the first place. This'll work in the
> > LS-6, too. :-)
>
> > Regards,
> > Bob W.
>
> > P.S. Apologies for treading so far out onto this particular discussional ice,
> > but I must've 'felt a need'...!
>
> Well said it is always best to avoid the situation in the first place,
> but there is also no substitute for knowing proper
> recovery technique when it does happen.
> To answer Johns question about my experience, let me first say that I
> have just under 100 hours in the 2-33.
> That being said I have no intention to go out ,buy a high performance
> glass ship, and go soaring with the
> thought that I will just get the hang of it in a few hours of flight.
> My intentions are to purchase the glider now during the winter months
> to "hopefully" fly after at least 6 more months of active gliding
> starting in the spring. I was planning to get a few more hours in the
> 2-33 first, especially after 6 months of no flying(it snows up here in
> northern Indiana),I would want to be refreshed in the trainer
> . After that I plan to transition to the Clubs 1-36 glider for a while
> and then get some additional hours in a 2 place glass ship. Not sure
> when I will actually be ,ready to fly the new one, I don't know how I
> could put a minimum hours requirement on it. I was leaving it up to my
> confidence level and abilities to determine when the time would be
> right. We have some excellent instructors at our glider port who will
> always keep a watchful eye out.
> I am very competitive and welcome the increased complexity and
> challenge of a flapped ship. I am looking forward to cross county
> flights and eventually competition. Am I sound in my thinking, or am I
> out in left field?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

- In my opinion, you should first do the fiberglass transition before
you even look at a fiberglass single seater... Then, go rent a
fiberglass singleseater and fly some more. Take a week (or more) of
vacations and travel to Arizona, California or Nevada (predicatable
good weather). Then look at flaps. Spitzers were good army training
gliders 50+ years ago and overwhelming majority of civilized world
since then successfully transitioned to sailplanes. My guess is that
you weren’t drawn to the sport because of ancient Greece. There are
numerous FBOs clubs offering fibrerglass training/transition. Just
because you might survive first couple of hours flying a fiberglass,
flapped sailplane doesn’t mean you wont have gaps in your training.
Try avoiding situations where you were wishing to be on the ground
when flying a sailplane... This should be fun, there is no reason to
expose yourself to unnecessary and easily avoidable risk.

sisu1a

February 3rd 11, 06:56 PM

> Take a week (or more) of
> vacations and travel to Arizona, California or Nevada (predicatable
> good weather). Then look at flaps. Spitzers were good army training
> gliders 50+ years ago and overwhelming majority of civilized world
> since then successfully transitioned to sailplanes.

Don't you dare talk that way about the 524 Gullywomper, there is NO
better training glider in the world! You DO have the money. Right? ;)

-p

Tony V

February 4th 11, 12:43 AM

glider12321 wrote:
> I couldn't agree more that it's vital to get glass time.

Vital? Maybe not. If you can handle an all metal B-4, then glass should
not present a problem. At least, it didn't for me.

Tony, LS6-b "6N"

Andreas Maurer

February 4th 11, 01:18 AM

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:22:53 -0800, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:

>I'm under the opposite impression! I found it very forgiving. My
>personal experience is 1500 hours in an ASW 20C and never a stall, spin,
>or even an incipient spin that wasn't intentional. That's with the CG
>about 75% of the range.

The 20 is very sensitive to the leading edge radius of the outer wing
panels.
When I refinished the 20 of my club I made the leading edge a little
sharper - the 20 gained A LOT performance (suddenly it could keep up
with the latest LS-6 and outran the ASW-27 at speeds over 100 kts),
but got significantly less forgiving if it was stalled with flap
setting 4.

I'd say that each 20 flies a little different - the 20 is incredibly
sensitive to the slightest airfoil variation.

Two years ago I flew a 20C that was incredibly docile - I coluld
easily thermal it at 41 kts with flaps 4 - the 20 of my club would
have already spun at that speed...

Andreas

Bruce Hoult

February 4th 11, 03:05 AM

On Feb 4, 1:33*am, BruceGreeff > wrote:
> Lesson learned is that it is far better to learn on something a little
> higher performance - but if you are solo in such a low performance old
> lady - you will need some transition training.

I'm not an instructor but I've taken dozens of friends/relatives on
their first glider flight, almost all in either a Janus (original,
flying elevator), Grob Twin Astir, or DG1000, and let them try the
controls.

Pretty much everyone can at least "keep it between 50 and 60" in a
straight line right from the start, and often in a 90 degree turn too.
It does help in the Janus to put on 1 notch (6 degrees) of flap, which
makes it handle similarly to the Grob.

Everyone who has learned to fly at our club in the past several years
has done it in the DG1000 and only the DG1000. I don't think there
have been any problems except persuading them to get out of the DG and
into a PW5 for beginning cross country exploring...

David Salmon[_2_]

February 4th 11, 04:04 PM

At 03:05 04 February 2011, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>On Feb 4, 1:33=A0am, BruceGreeff wrote:
>> Lesson learned is that it is far better to learn on something a little
>> higher performance - but if you are solo in such a low performance old
>> lady - you will need some transition training.
>
>I'm not an instructor but I've taken dozens of friends/relatives on
>their first glider flight, almost all in either a Janus (original,
>flying elevator), Grob Twin Astir, or DG1000, and let them try the
>controls.
>
>Pretty much everyone can at least "keep it between 50 and 60" in a
>straight line right from the start, and often in a 90 degree turn too.
>It does help in the Janus to put on 1 notch (6 degrees) of flap, which
>makes it handle similarly to the Grob.
>
>Everyone who has learned to fly at our club in the past several years
>has done it in the DG1000 and only the DG1000. I don't think there
>have been any problems except persuading them to get out of the DG and
>into a PW5 for beginning cross country exploring...
>
I haven't read all 42 postings so perhaps someone has already said this,
but my understanding is that the 20 is very reluctant to spin, except in
landing configuration, ie flaps and wheel down. However in 4 years of
flying one, nearly always at 16.6 meters, it never once attempted an
inadvertant spin entry.
Dave

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

February 4th 11, 11:15 PM

On 2/4/2011 8:04 AM, David Salmon wrote:

>>
> I haven't read all 42 postings so perhaps someone has already said this,
> but my understanding is that the 20 is very reluctant to spin, except in
> landing configuration, ie flaps and wheel down. However in 4 years of
> flying one, nearly always at 16.6 meters, it never once attempted an
> inadvertant spin entry.

My understanding and experience with my ASW 20C is it is very spin
resistant in the landing configuration, i.e., LANDING flaps selected and
wheel down. That's because the ailerons move up to a negative position,
giving the wing a lot of wash-out.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

February 5th 11, 01:05 AM

On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 16:04:31 +0000, David Salmon wrote:

> I haven't read all 42 postings so perhaps someone has already said this,
> but my understanding is that the 20 is very reluctant to spin, except in
> landing configuration, ie flaps and wheel down.
>
Look at what Andras Maurer has to say - he thinks '20 are very sensitive
to small changes in wing profile to the extent that almost every '20 has
different handling. Mine would sometimes spin without warning while
thermalling at 45 kts in a 40-45 degree bank and zero flap (did it twice)
but this was probably related to micro-turbulence in the thermal since I
was unable to reproduce that departure in still air later in the day, and
usually it was perfectly happy to thermal at that airspeed and bank
angle. OTOH mine was a perfect lady in zero and thermal flap at speeds
where others have said their '20 would certainly have spun.

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

Marc

February 5th 11, 02:31 AM

On Feb 4, 5:05*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> Look at what Andras Maurer has to say - he thinks '20 are very sensitive
> to small changes in wing profile to the extent that almost every '20 has
> different handling. Mine would sometimes spin without warning while
> thermalling at 45 kts in a 40-45 degree bank and zero flap (did it twice)
> but this was probably related to micro-turbulence in the thermal since I
> was unable to reproduce that departure in still air later in the day, and
> usually it was perfectly happy to thermal at that airspeed and bank
> angle. OTOH mine was a perfect lady in zero and thermal flap at speeds
> where others have said their '20 would certainly have spun.

I've owned a 20B, plus had several flights each in a couple of
different 20s and a 20C. The 20B and 20C both had beautiful handling,
no tendency to spin unless forced, and were well mannered in all
configurations. One 20 (low serial number, IIRC) would spin without
much warning in thermal or landing flap and always in the same
direction (over the top if I was turning the opposite way), the other
would do so only in landing flap, both seemed a bit twitchy at times.
I suspect Schleicher was still learning how to build glass gliders in
a repeatable fashion during the 20 production run, the 20B/C show the
benefits of experience (plus reduced landing flap travel)...

Marc

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

February 5th 11, 01:16 PM

On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 18:31:23 -0800, Marc wrote:

> I've owned a 20B, plus had several flights each in a couple of different
> 20s and a 20C. The 20B and 20C both had beautiful handling, no tendency
> to spin unless forced, and were well mannered in all configurations.
> One 20 (low serial number, IIRC) would spin without much warning in
> thermal or landing flap and always in the same direction (over the top
> if I was turning the opposite way), the other would do so only in
> landing flap, both seemed a bit twitchy at times. I suspect Schleicher
> was still learning how to build glass gliders in a repeatable fashion
> during the 20 production run, the 20B/C show the benefits of experience
> (plus reduced landing flap travel)...
>
Curiosity: have you any idea what the serials were for those 20s?
Mine was 20034, so fairly early...

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

February 5th 11, 04:29 PM

On Feb 5, 8:16*am, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 18:31:23 -0800, Marc wrote:
> > I've owned a 20B, plus had several flights each in a couple of different
> > 20s and a 20C. *The 20B and 20C both had beautiful handling, no tendency
> > to spin unless forced, and were well mannered in all configurations.
> > One 20 (low serial number, IIRC) would spin without much warning in
> > thermal or landing flap and always in the same direction (over the top
> > if I was turning the opposite way), the other would do so only in
> > landing flap, both seemed a bit twitchy at times. I suspect Schleicher
> > was still learning how to build glass gliders in a repeatable fashion
> > during the 20 production run, the 20B/C show the benefits of experience
> > (plus reduced landing flap travel)...
>
> Curiosity: have you any idea what the serials were for those 20s?
> Mine was 20034, so fairly early...

Other significant sources of variability are rigging of flaps &
ailerons, type & condition of seals... and of course now more than
half the 20 fleet flies with winglets of one sort or another, these
make a difference too (especially the odd installation with more toe
on one side than the other).

You really do need to treat these ships as individuals. My 20B is a
pussycat in #4 and L, it's a little sharp in #3. I fly it at 90% aft,
with winglets. It flies straight, the spin behavior is symmetric...
but it does have a eccentric lift pin that someone installed to get it
that way.

Question for Dan: when you swapped ships with the 20B pilot, how much
different were you two in weight? Your story could be explained
rather neatly if you were a bigger guy than your friend. I haven't
flown a 6. Tried to buy one, but the owner wasn't ready to sell. I
ended up with the 20B a few weeks later, have not regretted this.
Cockpit, controls, landing flaps, landing gear and wheel brake are all
better or a lot better on the 20B. However it's certainly true that
the 20 flies best if you keep the roll rates about 1/2 of maximum. At
high aileron deflections, she gets a little draggy. Not sure if I
want to fly a 6... I'm pretty happy with my ship, want to stay that
way!

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Andy[_1_]

February 5th 11, 04:59 PM

On Feb 5, 9:29*am, T8 > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 8:16*am, Martin Gregorie >
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 18:31:23 -0800, Marc wrote:
> > > I've owned a 20B, plus had several flights each in a couple of different
> > > 20s and a 20C. *The 20B and 20C both had beautiful handling, no tendency
> > > to spin unless forced, and were well mannered in all configurations.
> > > One 20 (low serial number, IIRC) would spin without much warning in
> > > thermal or landing flap and always in the same direction (over the top
> > > if I was turning the opposite way), the other would do so only in
> > > landing flap, both seemed a bit twitchy at times. I suspect Schleicher
> > > was still learning how to build glass gliders in a repeatable fashion
> > > during the 20 production run, the 20B/C show the benefits of experience
> > > (plus reduced landing flap travel)...
>
> > Curiosity: have you any idea what the serials were for those 20s?
> > Mine was 20034, so fairly early...
>
> Other significant sources of variability are rigging of flaps &
> ailerons, type & condition of seals... and of course now more than
> half the 20 fleet flies with winglets of one sort or another, these
> make a difference too (especially the odd installation with more toe
> on one side than the other).
>
> You really do need to treat these ships as individuals. *My 20B is a
> pussycat in #4 and L, it's a little sharp in #3. *I fly it at 90% aft,
> with winglets. *It flies straight, the spin behavior is symmetric...
> but it does have a eccentric lift pin that someone installed to get it
> that way.
>
> Question for Dan: when you swapped ships with the 20B pilot, how much
> different were you two in weight? *Your story could be explained
> rather neatly if you were a bigger guy than your friend. *I haven't
> flown a 6. *Tried to buy one, but the owner wasn't ready to sell. *I
> ended up with the 20B a few weeks later, have not regretted this.
> Cockpit, controls, landing flaps, landing gear and wheel brake are all
> better or a lot better on the 20B. *However it's certainly true that
> the 20 flies best if you keep the roll rates about 1/2 of maximum. *At
> high aileron deflections, she gets a little draggy. *Not sure if I
> want to fly a 6... I'm pretty happy with my ship, want to stay that
> way!
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

I'm curious to know how the eccentric lift pin works. How much
offset can introduced (expressed as an angle or linearly). How is it
possible to get any significant offset unless there is excessive play
in the main spar pins?

Surely the only way that an eccentric lift pin can be used to adjust
wing incidence is if it it done before the spars are bored for the
main pin bushings.

Andy

February 5th 11, 05:26 PM

On Feb 5, 11:59*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 9:29*am, T8 > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 8:16*am, Martin Gregorie >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 18:31:23 -0800, Marc wrote:
> > > > I've owned a 20B, plus had several flights each in a couple of different
> > > > 20s and a 20C. *The 20B and 20C both had beautiful handling, no tendency
> > > > to spin unless forced, and were well mannered in all configurations..
> > > > One 20 (low serial number, IIRC) would spin without much warning in
> > > > thermal or landing flap and always in the same direction (over the top
> > > > if I was turning the opposite way), the other would do so only in
> > > > landing flap, both seemed a bit twitchy at times. I suspect Schleicher
> > > > was still learning how to build glass gliders in a repeatable fashion
> > > > during the 20 production run, the 20B/C show the benefits of experience
> > > > (plus reduced landing flap travel)...
>
> > > Curiosity: have you any idea what the serials were for those 20s?
> > > Mine was 20034, so fairly early...
>
> > Other significant sources of variability are rigging of flaps &
> > ailerons, type & condition of seals... and of course now more than
> > half the 20 fleet flies with winglets of one sort or another, these
> > make a difference too (especially the odd installation with more toe
> > on one side than the other).
>
> > You really do need to treat these ships as individuals. *My 20B is a
> > pussycat in #4 and L, it's a little sharp in #3. *I fly it at 90% aft,
> > with winglets. *It flies straight, the spin behavior is symmetric...
> > but it does have a eccentric lift pin that someone installed to get it
> > that way.
>
> > Question for Dan: when you swapped ships with the 20B pilot, how much
> > different were you two in weight? *Your story could be explained
> > rather neatly if you were a bigger guy than your friend. *I haven't
> > flown a 6. *Tried to buy one, but the owner wasn't ready to sell. *I
> > ended up with the 20B a few weeks later, have not regretted this.
> > Cockpit, controls, landing flaps, landing gear and wheel brake are all
> > better or a lot better on the 20B. *However it's certainly true that
> > the 20 flies best if you keep the roll rates about 1/2 of maximum. *At
> > high aileron deflections, she gets a little draggy. *Not sure if I
> > want to fly a 6... I'm pretty happy with my ship, want to stay that
> > way!
>
> > -Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> I'm curious to know how the eccentric lift pin works. * How much
> offset can introduced (expressed as an angle or linearly). *How is it
> possible to get any significant offset unless there is excessive play
> in the main spar pins?
>
> Surely the only way that an eccentric lift pin can be used to adjust
> wing incidence is if it it done before the spars are bored for the
> main pin bushings.
>
> Andy

There are two standard offsets available from Schleicher, 0.5 and
1.0mm. These can be installed in "up" or "down" positions in place of
any of the standard pins. The standard clearance on the pins is
(iirc) 0.006", but practically speaking I think (I'm not a Schleicher
mechanic) these are intended to be either up or down. The distance
between the pins fore to aft is on the order of 30", so the incidence
change is truly tiny. 1mm gives less than 0.08 deg incidence change.
Nothing with as much hand labor involved as an ASW-20 comes out
identical in every copy, so having a way to get every example to fly
straight despite manufacturing variance is a good thing.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

February 5th 11, 05:39 PM

On Feb 5, 11:59*am, Andy > wrote:
> excessive play
> in the main spar pins?

Sorry, reading comprehension challenged today...

I don't know what the standard clearance is on the main pins, but it
isn't particularly tight. 0.08 deg over a 2" span (the center spar
stub, center to edge) is about 25 _ten_thousandths, so no problem at
all.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Marc

February 5th 11, 05:44 PM

On Feb 5, 5:16*am, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 18:31:23 -0800, Marc wrote:
> > I've owned a 20B, plus had several flights each in a couple of different
> > 20s and a 20C. *The 20B and 20C both had beautiful handling, no tendency
> > to spin unless forced, and were well mannered in all configurations.
> > One 20 (low serial number, IIRC) would spin without much warning in
> > thermal or landing flap and always in the same direction (over the top
> > if I was turning the opposite way), the other would do so only in
> > landing flap, both seemed a bit twitchy at times. I suspect Schleicher
> > was still learning how to build glass gliders in a repeatable fashion
> > during the 20 production run, the 20B/C show the benefits of experience
> > (plus reduced landing flap travel)...
>
> Curiosity: have you any idea what the serials were for those 20s?
> Mine was 20034, so fairly early...

The worst of the two was in the single digits, it was destroyed
several years later in a fatal stall/spin accident with a low time
pilot at the controls. The other one I have no idea about. I'll also
mention that the most important reason I had at the time for buying a
used 20B instead of a 20 was the automatic elevator hookup, I've had
two soaring friends die as a result of disconnected elevators, and
both were far more diligent pilots than I...

Marc

February 5th 11, 05:54 PM

On Feb 5, 11:59*am, Andy > wrote:

> Surely the only way that an eccentric lift pin can be used to adjust
> wing incidence is if it it done before the spars are bored for the
> main pin bushings.

Sorry, I am both reading comprehension *and* math challenged today it
seems (I have a medical excuse, it's temporary, fortunately!).
Previous answer to this deleted.

The clearance on the main pins I don't know. I'd guess it's around
0.003" judging by feel, but that's a guess, I've never paid too much
attention. The change in clearance due to an incidence offset is easy
to calculate though, and it's about 0.0005" total on the depth of the
center spar stub for a 1mm offset pin. Those are all armchair
numbers, but the conclusion (supported by experience) is "No Problem".

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Dan Marotta

February 5th 11, 06:05 PM

On Feb 5, 9:29*am, T8 > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 8:16*am, Martin Gregorie >
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 18:31:23 -0800, Marc wrote:
> > > I've owned a 20B, plus had several flights each in a couple of different
> > > 20s and a 20C. *The 20B and 20C both had beautiful handling, no tendency
> > > to spin unless forced, and were well mannered in all configurations.
> > > One 20 (low serial number, IIRC) would spin without much warning in
> > > thermal or landing flap and always in the same direction (over the top
> > > if I was turning the opposite way), the other would do so only in
> > > landing flap, both seemed a bit twitchy at times. I suspect Schleicher
> > > was still learning how to build glass gliders in a repeatable fashion
> > > during the 20 production run, the 20B/C show the benefits of experience
> > > (plus reduced landing flap travel)...
>
> > Curiosity: have you any idea what the serials were for those 20s?
> > Mine was 20034, so fairly early...
>
> Other significant sources of variability are rigging of flaps &
> ailerons, type & condition of seals... and of course now more than
> half the 20 fleet flies with winglets of one sort or another, these
> make a difference too (especially the odd installation with more toe
> on one side than the other).
>
> You really do need to treat these ships as individuals. *My 20B is a
> pussycat in #4 and L, it's a little sharp in #3. *I fly it at 90% aft,
> with winglets. *It flies straight, the spin behavior is symmetric...
> but it does have a eccentric lift pin that someone installed to get it
> that way.
>
> Question for Dan: when you swapped ships with the 20B pilot, how much
> different were you two in weight? *Your story could be explained
> rather neatly if you were a bigger guy than your friend. *I haven't
> flown a 6. *Tried to buy one, but the owner wasn't ready to sell. *I
> ended up with the 20B a few weeks later, have not regretted this.
> Cockpit, controls, landing flaps, landing gear and wheel brake are all
> better or a lot better on the 20B. *However it's certainly true that
> the 20 flies best if you keep the roll rates about 1/2 of maximum. *At
> high aileron deflections, she gets a little draggy. *Not sure if I
> want to fly a 6... I'm pretty happy with my ship, want to stay that
> way!
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

Evan, I swapped with Tom Serkowski (5Z) and I think it was a 20B
(stiff wings rather than floppy). I'm a bit taller than Tom but I
think we're about the same weight and we both flew dry. After
landing, I asked him what he thought and he held up the index finger
of one hand and placed the palm of the other hand down on it
indicating balancing on the point of a needle. My reply to his
question was that I thought the 20 was on rails, meaning it was
difficult to roll. I'm sure that's because of the difference in
handling qualities of the two - the LS-6a being extremely light on the
controls.

Hope that answers your question.

David Smith[_3_]

February 5th 11, 10:10 PM

The ASW20 in its day was/is a racing thoroughbred, set up properly and
flown by a experienced pilot was the best glider in its era. But it is not
tolerant of mishandling, in particular use the flaps wrongly and it will
bite you and in common with other designs of the time the wing is biased
to a climb profile.
Later designs used by the LS6, ASW27 and Ventus had much more cruise
biased wings and outclassed the 20. The earlier LS6 A and B were OK but
the 18m LS6C is the gem, as is the 18m LS8 and command premium price. As a
15m ship the ASW27 is still at the top of the tree and should be included
in this discussion.
In short if you are a switched on pilot with not many bucks you will love
the ASW 20 and accept its vices. If you value the extra refinement and can
pay double the bucks the LS6C is a damn good choice. Enjoy either for your
own pleasure and goals, neither will make you world champion,

Dave

At 17:44 05 February 2011, Marc wrote:
>On Feb 5, 5:16=A0am, Martin Gregorie
>wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 18:31:23 -0800, Marc wrote:
>> > I've owned a 20B, plus had several flights each in a couple of
>differen=
>t
>> > 20s and a 20C. =A0The 20B and 20C both had beautiful handling, no
>tende=
>ncy
>> > to spin unless forced, and were well mannered in all configurations.
>> > One 20 (low serial number, IIRC) would spin without much warning in
>> > thermal or landing flap and always in the same direction (over the
top
>> > if I was turning the opposite way), the other would do so only in
>> > landing flap, both seemed a bit twitchy at times. I suspect
Schleicher
>> > was still learning how to build glass gliders in a repeatable
fashion
>> > during the 20 production run, the 20B/C show the benefits of
>experience
>> > (plus reduced landing flap travel)...
>>
>> Curiosity: have you any idea what the serials were for those 20s?
>> Mine was 20034, so fairly early...
>
>The worst of the two was in the single digits, it was destroyed
>several years later in a fatal stall/spin accident with a low time
>pilot at the controls. The other one I have no idea about. I'll also
>mention that the most important reason I had at the time for buying a
>used 20B instead of a 20 was the automatic elevator hookup, I've had
>two soaring friends die as a result of disconnected elevators, and
>both were far more diligent pilots than I...
>
>Marc
>
>

Marc

February 5th 11, 11:44 PM

On Feb 5, 2:10*pm, David Smith > wrote:
> In short if you are a switched on pilot with not many bucks you will love
> the ASW 20 and accept its vices. If you value the extra refinement and can
> pay double the bucks the LS6C is a damn good choice. Enjoy either for your
> own pleasure and goals, neither will make you world champion,

I'm going to faintly disagree with you here, and say that the vices
had been pretty much worked out by the time the 20B and C went into
production, I've never heard of anyone having problems with either.
The 20 is a mixed bag, some (perhaps most) are apparently fine if set
up with non-aggressive CG, others seem to have issues with stall/spin
characteristics no matter how they are set up. The higher prices
commanded by the B and C models likewise reflect that extra
refinement...

Marc

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

February 6th 11, 02:41 AM

On 2/5/2011 2:10 PM, David Smith wrote:
> The ASW20 in its day was/is a racing thoroughbred, set up properly and
> flown by a experienced pilot was the best glider in its era. But it is not
> tolerant of mishandling, in particular use the flaps wrongly and it will
> bite you and in common with other designs of the time the wing is biased
> to a climb profile.
> Later designs used by the LS6, ASW27 and Ventus had much more cruise
> biased wings and outclassed the 20. The earlier LS6 A and B were OK but
> the 18m LS6C is the gem, as is the 18m LS8 and command premium price. As a
> 15m ship the ASW27 is still at the top of the tree and should be included
> in this discussion.

The LS6 is same vintage as the ASW 20B/C, at least a generation behind
the ASW 27. The :S6 a fine glider, but it is not a match for the ASW 27.
This pilot, and the other ASW 20 (and B/C) pilots I know, did not find
the LS6 to be superior in contests.

If you can afford an ASW 27, I strongly recommend it over the ASW 20 and
the LS6. It has a far more crash resistant cockpit, all self-connecting
controls, landing flaps, airbrakes that won't suck out, a disc brake on
the main wheel, and wonderful performance. It makes the LS6 and ASW 20
seem very old fashioned.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

David Smith[_3_]

February 6th 11, 05:54 PM

Memories are funny things Eric, you forgot the LS6 won 4 world
championships, in 85, 87, 91 and 93 the ASW20 won once in 81 coming second
to a Ventus in 83 at Hobbs. But that is not to decry the 20, at 30 years
old it "IS" best bang for your bucks and still holds its value.
The higher price you will pay for an LS6 reflects the greater desirability
and the later 18m version is the most desirable of all. It stayed in
production until 2003, but in later years the factory was making mostly
LS8s, another desirable glider that will not be cheap.
In todays market recreational pilots want 18m span and an engine if
possible but an 18m LS6 will cost more than a Ventus C turbo of similar
age. However, lets not get into a discussion on the merits or demerits of
engines in gliders.

David

At 02:41 06 February 2011, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>On 2/5/2011 2:10 PM, David Smith wrote:
>> The ASW20 in its day was/is a racing thoroughbred, set up properly and
>> flown by a experienced pilot was the best glider in its era. But it is
>not
>> tolerant of mishandling, in particular use the flaps wrongly and it
will
>> bite you and in common with other designs of the time the wing is
biased
>> to a climb profile.
>> Later designs used by the LS6, ASW27 and Ventus had much more cruise
>> biased wings and outclassed the 20. The earlier LS6 A and B were OK
but
>> the 18m LS6C is the gem, as is the 18m LS8 and command premium price.
As
>a
>> 15m ship the ASW27 is still at the top of the tree and should be
>included
>> in this discussion.
>
>The LS6 is same vintage as the ASW 20B/C, at least a generation behind
>the ASW 27. The :S6 a fine glider, but it is not a match for the ASW 27.

>This pilot, and the other ASW 20 (and B/C) pilots I know, did not find
>the LS6 to be superior in contests.
>
>If you can afford an ASW 27, I strongly recommend it over the ASW 20 and

>the LS6. It has a far more crash resistant cockpit, all self-connecting
>controls, landing flaps, airbrakes that won't suck out, a disc brake on

>the main wheel, and wonderful performance. It makes the LS6 and ASW 20
>seem very old fashioned.
>
>--
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>email me)
>

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

February 6th 11, 06:39 PM

On 2/6/2011 9:54 AM, David Smith wrote:
> Memories are funny things Eric, you forgot the LS6 won 4 world
> championships, in 85, 87, 91 and 93 the ASW20 won once in 81 coming second
> to a Ventus in 83 at Hobbs. But that is not to decry the 20, at 30 years
> old it "IS" best bang for your bucks and still holds its value.

I didn't forget that - my remarks were personal observations from flying
against L6s recreationally and in contests, and reports from other LS6
and ASW20 owners doing the same. I have also observed the ASW27 is
noticeably superior to an ASW20, and that is why I don't lump the LS6
with the 27, but put it with the 20.

> The higher price you will pay for an LS6 reflects the greater desirability

Oddly, that did not translate into sales, with the ASW20 variants
selling over 1,000, and LS6 variants at about 375 (wikipedia figure). If
the LS6 does command a higher price, perhaps it is the shortage of
gliders available, and not the desirability that accounts for it.

I'm not suggesting the L6 is in any way inferior to the ASW20, just that
it is not superior, and definitely not in the ASW 27 class.

> and the later 18m version is the most desirable of all. It stayed in
> production until 2003, but in later years the factory was making mostly
> LS8s, another desirable glider that will not be cheap.

I'm pretty sure the OP was not looking for 18 meter span gliders, which
is a very different discussion, and excludes the 20 he was asking about.

> In todays market recreational pilots want 18m span and an engine if
> possible but an 18m LS6 will cost more than a Ventus C turbo of similar
> age. However, lets not get into a discussion on the merits or demerits of
> engines in gliders.

Why not? In another thread, of course. I love that discussion! "A Guide
to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to
know http://tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

February 6th 11, 08:11 PM

On Feb 6, 1:39*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> On 2/6/2011 9:54 AM, David Smith wrote:
>
> > Memories are funny things Eric, you forgot the LS6 won 4 world
> > championships, in 85, 87, 91 and 93 the ASW20 won once in 81 coming second
> > to a Ventus in 83 at Hobbs. But that is not to decry the 20, at 30 years
> > old it "IS" best bang for your bucks and still holds its value.
>
> I didn't forget that - my remarks were personal observations from flying
> against L6s recreationally and in contests, and reports from other LS6
> and ASW20 owners doing the same. I have also observed the ASW27 is
> noticeably superior to an ASW20, and that is why I don't lump the LS6
> with the 27, but put it with the 20.

You're both right. Except that to suggest that any given glider did
the winning is just silly. The nut on the stick does that, always.
What he wins *in* is generally "the ship du jour", which is as much a
feature of fad and fashion as anything else.

Eric, your observations leave out what (second generation) winglets do
for the 20 -- not for the least reason that the original droop tip was
a real aerodynamic dog.

Modern tweaks on the 20B render a surprisingly competitive glider in
15m. Ask UH, it goes.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

binks

February 7th 11, 03:34 AM

On Feb 6, 3:11*pm, T8 > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 1:39*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
> > On 2/6/2011 9:54 AM, David Smith wrote:
>
> > > Memories are funny things Eric, you forgot the LS6 won 4 world
> > > championships, in 85, 87, 91 and 93 the ASW20 won once in 81 coming second
> > > to a Ventus in 83 at Hobbs. But that is not to decry the 20, at 30 years
> > > old it "IS" best bang for your bucks and still holds its value.
>
> > I didn't forget that - my remarks were personal observations from flying
> > against L6s recreationally and in contests, and reports from other LS6
> > and ASW20 owners doing the same. I have also observed the ASW27 is
> > noticeably superior to an ASW20, and that is why I don't lump the LS6
> > with the 27, but put it with the 20.
>
> You're both right. *Except that to suggest that any given glider did
> the winning is just silly. *The nut on the stick does that, always.
> What he wins *in* is generally "the ship du jour", which is as much a
> feature of fad and fashion as anything else.
>
> Eric, your observations leave out what (second generation) winglets do
> for the 20 -- not for the least reason that the original droop tip was
> a real aerodynamic dog.
>
> Modern tweaks on the 20B render a surprisingly competitive glider in
> 15m. *Ask UH, it goes.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

Yes I too would be interested in what improvements are made with the
added winglets. One of the 20B's I am considering has the aftermarket
winglets added..still 15m ship after winglets were added.