DG's in competition?

[[email protected]]

Simple question. Why are DG sailplanes so seldom seen in competition?
Thanks
Rick Lake

[S. Murry]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:12:06 -0500, > wrote:

> Simple question. Why are DG sailplanes so seldom seen in competition?
> Thanks
> Rick Lake

We're afraid we'll break a $100 part and have to pay DG $2000 in service
fees in order to get it...

--Stefan

--
Stefan Murry
DG-200

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 7/16/2012 1:58 PM, S. Murry wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:12:06 -0500, > wrote:
>
>> Simple question. Why are DG sailplanes so seldom seen in competition?
>> Thanks
>> Rick Lake
>
> We're afraid we'll break a $100 part and have to pay DG $2000 in service
> fees in order to get it...

Isn't that just on the older gliders that were not built by DG?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[Peter F[_2_]]

"Perceived" performance

Discus / ASW24 / ASW28 / LS7 / LS8 / SZD55 are all considered to have the
legs on DG300 series

Ventus / ASW27 / ASG29 considered to hahe the legs on DG 600 / 800

Duo considered to have legs on DG1000

If you were a budding comp pilot why would you buy a DG?

Why they're not seen in handicapped comps is a different matter.

P'raps there are just fewer around

PF

At 19:12 16 July 2012, wrote:
>Simple question. Why are DG sailplanes so seldom seen in competition?
>Thanks
>Rick Lake
>

[R Walters]

On Monday, July 16, 2012 12:12:06 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
> Simple question. Why are DG sailplanes so seldom seen in competition?
> Thanks
> Rick Lake

Rick,
A DG 300 just won the AirSailing Sports class regional, and another did well in the Standard Class nats ( both handicapped races.) I feel that most DG's have been motorgliders and in general MG pilots do not race. The DG 800 is not quite the performance equal of the newer 18m ships.
Richard Walters

[SF]

The market based answer is that they are not considered to be competitive. This is further complicated by their inability to figure out how to make spare parts and service profitable enough for them without resorting to the extortion of the owners of their older gliders with the service contract/operating manual scheme.

In regards to their newer gilders; they have already demonstrated their lack of intelligence when it comes to attempting to force people to buy things vs. making them want to by things. What will keep them from changing which gliders require a service contract in the future? "Trust us, we wouldn't do that" sounds a little hollow coming from an extortionist.

Look at the resale values of older LS and DG gliders before and after the Service contract fiasco. DG has cost a lot of us, a lot of money, and we are not likely to forget it. I really don't see how a company that acts like this expects to survive, and I really don't think they deserve too either.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, July 16, 2012 12:12:06 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
> Simple question. Why are DG sailplanes so seldom seen in competition?
> Thanks
> Rick Lake

I disagree, I think you see them quite often in the OLC competition. And the results you can see for yourselves.

[noel.wade]

As an actual DG-300 owner, let me try to answer with more than just a
complaint about the Service Fee (which, yes, I hate; and do not pay.
My ship is registered experimental and therefore I rarely have to
actually buy a factory part).

For one reason or another, DG's were never developed with racing as
their top priority (unlike, say, some of the S-H ships). Early on,
the folks behind DG were working on lots of other things besides
winning races. High-end performance was sought, but not optimized.
They don't seem to have pursued new airfoils as aggressively as some
others (witness the DG-400 re-using the DG-200 wing, with its older
Wortmann airfoil). My DG-300 is a prime example of the company's
priorities: It has much better ergonomics, visibility, and control-
harmony than many of its contemporaries (the LS-4 being one notable
exception in the realm of ergonomics and control-harmony). The DG-300
was also one of the very first gliders to have all-automatic control
hookups, and a ballast-dump system that prevents the CG from migrating
aft during the dumping process.

But starting about the time the DG-300 came out, a lot of the glider
manufacturers realized that simply achieving max L/D was no longer the
ultimate goal of their research and new aircraft. They'd reached a
point of severe diminishing returns in that realm. And as cross-
country flying became more refined it was realized that higher wing-
loadings and faster speeds were the areas to concentrate on. In the
mid/late 1980's (right after the DG-300 came out), research and new
aircraft shifted towards airfoils that no longer pushed for a higher
overall L/D; but instead had a flatter polar and retained more of
their L/D at higher speeds. For example: At low speeds and
thermalling, I can do just as well (if not beat) modern racing
machines with similar wingspans & wing-loadings. But when cruising at
80 knots my DG-300 sinks a full 40-60 feet per minute more than a more
modern ship like an LS-8. This isn't really noticeable in casual XC
flying; but in racing it adds up.

At the time the DG-300 came out, the differences in performance were
much smaller, though. Unfortunately, I think DG miscalculated in
thinking that a safe-and-pleasant-to-fly glider would sell on its own
merits. The other manufacturers concentrated on race results and
contest victories as "proof" of the superiority of their aircraft
designs, and were largely successful in their efforts. Given the
rapid advance of soaring technology over the 1970's and 1980's, race
victories helped buoy the idea that a ship that won a contest was "the
new hot thing". DG was never "the new hot thing" on the circuit, and
so it never gained the reputation as a racer.

Fast forward to today. I bought my DG-300 thinking I wouldn't get
into racing (I was concentrating on safety and ergonomics and value-
for-the-dollar so the DG-300 made sense for me). Several people told
me at the time that I was making a bad choice because "DG-300's don't
really 'go' - look at the race results". Yet I have successfully
campaigned my DG-300 in a half-dozen Regional contests (in Sports
Class) over the last 3.5 years. I've consistently finished in the top
5, including taking 2nd place at the Ephrata regionals (my "home"
contest) 3 years in a row. I also took 4th (technically 5th, behind
an Aussie guest pilot) at the Std Class Nationals a few weeks ago -
which was a handicapped race this year. The people that finished
above me in the Nats were all current or former National Champions
with at least 20+ years more flying experience - so I'm OK with where
I wound up. I've only been flying gliders for 5.5 years; so its not
like I'm some jedi-master of the sport - the ship *has* to be
reasonably competitive for this to be possible. I've also set state
records and made 500+ km flights with the aircraft; its certainly no
slouch!

--Noel
P.S. Eric: Sadly, No. It includes DG's built by the former Glaser-
Dirks company. Basically, anything that the DG Flugzuegbau company
supports that it isn't currently selling as a new glider is subject to
the "fee". So far I've always been successful in ducking it,
though. :-P

[[email protected]]

Thanks everyone!! Very insightful answers.
And thank you Al Gore for inventing the Internet!!!

Rick

[Chris Klix, US and Canadian DG/LS Agent]

On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 1:40:32 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
> Thanks everyone!! Very insightful answers.
> And thank you Al Gore for inventing the Internet!!!
>
> Rick

I intentionally don’t comment much on these groups because of the time it can take away from other important matters, but in this case, as a US DG dealer I feel I am obligated to correct some of the misinformation I am reading. First, Eric is actually correct. The Service contract only applies to aircraft that the current DG Flugzeugbau Company did not originally build.. It only applies to gliders built before they were founded in 1996 and formerly built by Rolladen-Schneider and Glaser-Dirks, both of which went out of business. All gliders built by DG Flugzeugbau, according to Mr. Weber, will never have such a service agreement as long as DG stays in business, even for gliders no longer in production. EASA has made it much more expensive in recent years to support these older gliders and the service agreement helps pay these expenses. Granted there are many opinions about better ways this could have been handled so not to disgruntle existing owners, but the service agreement does not have anything to do with the quality or performance of the gliders built by DG Flugzeugbau. Regarding the comments about bankruptcy; Mr. Weber is a very wealthy man and has his hands in many other ventures as well. He has the means and says he will never let the company go into bankruptcy. In fact with the orders I placed with them to fulfill my USG contract to supply 19 gliders to the USAFA, I am sure they are well in the black. Second, please note aircraft with Experimental certificates that were not certificated in the armature built category still must be maintained safe and airworthy with FAA approved parts. Also, contrary to many beliefs, AD’s can and many times do apply to these aircraft when the same model would have later received a type certificate. In such cases the AD will state in the Applicability section “certified in any category”. Third, DG is the only German glider manufacturer that has done crash testing and developed the dual wall construction cockpit for better crash worthiness. They have since been in the forefront in safety features such as the making the Röger hook and Piggott-hook features standard on all their gliders. They also came out with many other safety features such as the NOAH system for quicker cockpit emergency exiting. There is perhaps a compromise to safety and maximum performance but that is not to say DG gliders have not done well in competition. Here are the Competition results so you can see for yourself: http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/wettbewerbs-ergebnisse.html.
Chris

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:50:21 PM UTC-7, Chris Klix, US and Canadian DG/LS Agent wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 1:40:32 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
> > Thanks everyone!! Very insightful answers.
> > And thank you Al Gore for inventing the Internet!!!
> >
> > Rick
>
> I intentionally don’t comment much on these groups because of the time it can take away from other important matters, but in this case, as a US DG dealer I feel I am obligated to correct some of the misinformation I am reading. First, Eric is actually correct. The Service contract only applies to aircraft that the current DG Flugzeugbau Company did not originally build. It only applies to gliders built before they were founded in 1996 and formerly built by Rolladen-Schneider and Glaser-Dirks, both of which went out of business. All gliders built by DG Flugzeugbau, according to Mr. Weber, will never have such a service agreement as long as DG stays in business, even for gliders no longer in production. EASA has made it much more expensive in recent years to support these older gliders and the service agreement helps pay these expenses. Granted there are many opinions about better ways this could have been handled so not to disgruntle existing owners, but the service agreement does not have anything to do with the quality or performance of the gliders built by DG Flugzeugbau. Regarding the comments about bankruptcy; Mr. Weber is a very wealthy man and has his hands in many other ventures as well. He has the means and says he will never let the company go into bankruptcy. In fact with the orders I placed with them to fulfill my USG contract to supply 19 gliders to the USAFA, I am sure they are well in the black. Second, please note aircraft with Experimental certificates that were not certificated in the armature built category still must be maintained safe and airworthy with FAA approved parts. Also, contrary to many beliefs, AD’s can and many times do apply to these aircraft when the same model would have later received a type certificate. In such cases the AD will state in the Applicability section “certified in any category”. Third, DG is the only German glider manufacturer that has done crash testing and developed the dual wall construction cockpit for better crash worthiness. They have since been in the forefront in safety features such as the making the Röger hook and Piggott-hook features standard on all their gliders. They also came out with many other safety features such as the NOAH system for quicker cockpit emergency exiting. There is perhaps a compromise to safety and maximum performance but that is not to say DG gliders have not done well in competition. Here are the Competition results so you can see for yourself: http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/wettbewerbs-ergebnisse.html.
> Chris

Correction to my previous post, in the following text I meant to write “certificated in any category” not certified in any category. It should read as follows: Also, contrary to many beliefs, AD’s can and many times do apply to these aircraft when the same model would have later received a type certificate. In such cases the AD will state in the Applicability section “certificated in any category”.

[K]

Mr. Weber is a very wealthy man and has his hands in many other ventures as well. He has the means and says he will never let the company go into bankruptcy. In fact with the orders I placed with them to fulfill my USG contract to supply 19 gliders to the USAFA, I am sure they are well in the black. Second, please note aircraft with Experimental certificates that were not certificated in the armature built category still must be maintained safe and airworthy with FAA approved parts. Also, contrary to many beliefs, AD’s can and many times do apply to these aircraft when the same model would have later received a type certificate. In such cases the AD will state in the Applicability section “certified in any category”.
> Chris

Chris,
You are not suggesting "Too big to fail" are you;). Kidding aside, I have it straight from the FAA (Repeatedly) that an airplane certified in any Experimental category, Including Exhibition and Racing, has no requirement whatsoever to use FAA approved parts. An "Experimental" by its very nature has not been shown (Or have any need to) comply with FAA standards. Why would the parts that make up such an airplane need to be compliant? Are you saying there is FAA approved metric aviation hardware?

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:56:48 PM UTC-7, K wrote:
> Mr. Weber is a very wealthy man and has his hands in many other ventures as well. He has the means and says he will never let the company go into bankruptcy. In fact with the orders I placed with them to fulfill my USG contract to supply 19 gliders to the USAFA, I am sure they are well in the black. Second, please note aircraft with Experimental certificates that were not certificated in the armature built category still must be maintained safe and airworthy with FAA approved parts. Also, contrary to many beliefs, AD’s can and many times do apply to these aircraft when the same model would have later received a type certificate. In such cases the AD will state in the Applicability section “certified in any category”. > Chris Chris, You are not suggesting "Too big to fail" are you;). Kidding aside, I have it straight from the FAA (Repeatedly) that an airplane certified in any Experimental category, Including Exhibition and Racing, has no requirement whatsoever to use FAA approved parts. An "Experimental" by its very nature has not been shown (Or have any need to) comply with FAA standards. Why would the parts that make up such an airplane need to be compliant? Are you saying there is FAA approved metric aviation hardware?

OK, I admit the term I used “FAA approved parts” is miss leading and should only be used when referring to aircraft with standard airworthiness certificates. My mistake; however what I should have said is the FAA certifying office is responsible for ensuring the aircraft is safe and airworthy. Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used must be inspected and maintained in accordance with the applicable requirements of parts 43 and 91. Glider aircraft represent approximately 25 percent of the experimental exhibition fleet and we are privileged to have this category available to us for foreign production aircraft. However, if we in the relatively small soaring community of experimental certificated gliders abuse this privilege it could easily be taken away from us.

The point I am trying to make is we must all be careful what we say on these public forum sites, myself included as you just pointed out, so not to encourage others who may not have the same common sense as you or I to just arbitrarily install un-airworthy parts.

Regarding your question of FAA approved metric hardware, actually for gliders with a TC the hardware used by the manufacturer is FAA approved through the bilateral agreement, most of which it’s quality is controlled by the DIN standards.
Chris

[[email protected]]

On Friday, July 27, 2012 1:50:44 PM UTC-7, S. Murry wrote:
> If I lived in Europe and needed EASA-approved "flight manuals" annually,
> perhaps I would be willing to pay the annual fee (I guess I would have no
> choice besides selling my glider). However, living in the US, I do not
> need this, all I need (maybe) is parts. Charge me a profitable price for
> the parts-fine. Charge me by the hour for consultation regarding parts or
> service-fine. Charge me an annual fee for something that I probably will
> never use, and make it back-dated forever-not fine. I have no problem
> paying for services rendered, but I have a big problem with being charged
> for things I don't need or want.

Just to add on to what Stefan said, I've owned three DG gliders over the years, including one purchased new from the (Glaser-Dirks) factory. I've been quite happy with service provided by the factory, and the US distributors, including Chris, who goes out of his way to batch orders for small parts to reduce shipping costs.

Chris, quite sadly, I won't buy another legacy DG or LS glider, as the annual fee adds a significant amount to the ownership costs. Nor will I ever buy a new DG or LS glider, as I can't trust that the the company won't seek to add additional fees in the future. Unlike Mr. Weber, I'm not a wealthy man, and I can't take the chance that ownership of one of these gliders will end up being a financial burden, or lose part of its resale value overnight...

Marc

[Ken Flaton]

Error in the Chris' claim concerning excluded gliders: NOT limited
to those he specified, also excluded are those produced by AMS
(mine in 2001, for example). I could not get from Mr Weber how
AMS could produce gliders without having generated some
(licensing?) revenue for his company, but alas, he was adamant
that my glider is also subject to the fees.

I also agree with many of the other DG owners who have written
here: wonderful machine in almost every way, I love it dearly,
but I wouldn't buy a pencil from any company led by anyone from
DG's management team. IMO: despicable.

cheers,

--ken


At 00:04 28 July 2012, wrote:
>On Friday, July 27, 2012 1:50:44 PM UTC-7, S. Murry wrote:
>> If I lived in Europe and needed EASA-approved "flight
manuals" annually,
>=
>=20
>> perhaps I would be willing to pay the annual fee (I guess I
would have
>n=
>o =20
>> choice besides selling my glider). However, living in the US,
I do not =
>=20
>> need this, all I need (maybe) is parts. Charge me a
profitable price
>for=
> =20
>> the parts-fine. Charge me by the hour for consultation
regarding parts
>o=
>r =20
>> service-fine. Charge me an annual fee for something that I
probably
>will=
> =20
>> never use, and make it back-dated forever-not fine. I have
no problem =
>=20
>> paying for services rendered, but I have a big problem with
being
>charged=
> =20
>> for things I don't need or want.
>
>Just to add on to what Stefan said, I've owned three DG gliders
over the
>ye=
>ars, including one purchased new from the (Glaser-Dirks)
factory. I've
>bee=
>n quite happy with service provided by the factory, and the US
>distributors=
>, including Chris, who goes out of his way to batch orders for
small parts
>=
>to reduce shipping costs. =20
>
>Chris, quite sadly, I won't buy another legacy DG or LS glider,
as the
>annu=
>al fee adds a significant amount to the ownership costs. Nor
will I ever
>b=
>uy a new DG or LS glider, as I can't trust that the the company
won't seek
>=
>to add additional fees in the future. Unlike Mr. Weber, I'm not
a wealthy
>=
>man, and I can't take the chance that ownership of one of these
gliders
>wil=
>l end up being a financial burden, or lose part of its resale
value
>overnig=
>ht...
>
>Marc
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, July 28, 2012 3:43:13 PM UTC-7, Ken Flaton wrote:
> Error in the Chris' claim concerning excluded gliders: NOT limited to those he specified, also excluded are those produced by AMS (mine in 2001, for example). I could not get from Mr Weber how AMS could produce gliders without having generated some (licensing?) revenue for his company, but alas, he was adamant that my glider is also subject to the fees. I also agree with many of the other DG owners who have written here: wonderful machine in almost every way, I love it dearly, but I wouldn't buy a pencil from any company led by anyone from DG's management team. IMO: despicable. cheers, --ken At 00:04 28 July 2012, wrote: >On Friday, July 27, 2012 1:50:44 PM UTC-7, S. Murry wrote: >> If I lived in Europe and needed EASA-approved "flight manuals" annually, >= >=20 >> perhaps I would be willing to pay the annual fee (I guess I would have >n= >o =20 >> choice besides selling my glider). However, living in the US, I do not = >=20 >> need this, all I need (maybe) is parts. Charge me a profitable price >for= > =20 >> the parts-fine. Charge me by the hour for consultation regarding parts >o= >r =20 >> service-fine. Charge me an annual fee for something that I probably >will= > =20 >> never use, and make it back-dated forever-not fine. I have no problem = >=20 >> paying for services rendered, but I have a big problem with being >charged= > =20 >> for things I don't need or want. > >Just to add on to what Stefan said, I've owned three DG gliders over the >ye= >ars, including one purchased new from the (Glaser-Dirks) factory. I've >bee= >n quite happy with service provided by the factory, and the US >distributors= >, including Chris, who goes out of his way to batch orders for small parts >= >to reduce shipping costs. =20 > >Chris, quite sadly, I won't buy another legacy DG or LS glider, as the >annu= >al fee adds a significant amount to the ownership costs. Nor will I ever >b= >uy a new DG or LS glider, as I can't trust that the the company won't seek >= >to add additional fees in the future. Unlike Mr. Weber, I'm not a wealthy >= >man, and I can't take the chance that ownership of one of these gliders >wil= >l end up being a financial burden, or lose part of its resale value >overnig= >ht... > >Marc > >

Yes, there are some exceptions with gliders built by Elan, the company prior to it becoming AMS, but I was not going to get that deap into the details here. Perhaps there are even some AMS gliders included, I am not sure, but I have never been given any information as to how they selected the exceptions they did, other than these are gliders they did not build. I don't like the service agreement either and have verbilized it many times to Mr. Weber and others at DG. The bottom line is Mr. Weber has annouced his retirment early this year and that Holger Back the current manager is becoming a partner in the business. Perhaps with time Holger will be able to find a sollution that everyone can live with.
Chris

[Tom S]

On 7/17/12 1:40 PM, wrote:
> And thank you Al Gore for inventing the Internet!!!

"In the 1980s and 1990s, he promoted legislation that funded an
expansion of the ARPANET, allowing greater public access, eventually
leading to the creation of the Internet."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_information_technology

So he was instrumental in making it happen. And he never claimed to
have invented the internet. ...stupid "sound bite" politics.