Buying a 1-35 pros and cons?

[[email protected]]

Does anyone have any inside info on the pros / cons of buying a 1-35. I am interested in learning cross country. I am mostly looking to hear from any current or former 1-35 owners.

Thanks,
Tim W

[Ralph Jones[_3_]]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:13:28 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>Does anyone have any inside info on the pros / cons of buying a 1-35. I am interested in learning cross country. I am mostly looking to hear from any current or former 1-35 owners.
>
I flew one briefly in the Seventies and wasn't exactly thrilled. The
two-stage flap control with the disengaging levers seemed like an
accident waiting to happen, and the stick had a remarkably abrupt
center detent that felt much like a cheap PC joystick.

On the plus side, it could beat the heck out of Standard-class glass
in a short-field landing contest.

rj.

[son_of_flubber]

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 4:13:28 PM UTC-4, Tim Weston wrote:
> Does anyone have any inside info on the pros / cons of buying a 1-35. I am interested in learning cross country.

Since I'm at the same stage of glider piloting as you are, I thought that you might appreciate my perspective. It's a bit different than the more experienced pilots.

To rephrase your question, "What are the pros and cons of a low-hour pilot buying a glider that has flaps only (no spoilers)?"

Back in August 2012, I asked RAS "how does a pilot learn to fly a flaps only glider?" Not easily. There are very few tandem trainers that only have flaps.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/rec.aviation.soaring/DqKTBzfdZxM

What settled it for me was this. A former owner of a flaps-only glider privately communicated off-RAS that he had wasted an entire year teaching himself how to properly land a flaps only glider. He also pointed out that some of the 1-35 landings on Youtube and such are extremely long and inept. In other words, some pilots do a crappy job of flying 1-35s and live to upload videos of their efforts. The pilot who pointed this out to me is now accomplished in XC. For that and other reasons I consider him a reliable source. Not all advice is good advice on RAS.

So maybe you're a natural pilot who can quickly master flaps-only landings. Maybe you've have thousands of hours flying airplanes with flaps. I'm not a natural pilot, and so I figured that there was a good chance that I would end up wasting a year just learning how to properly land a 1-35, and that I might get completely discouraged with the sport, scare myself badly, or worse.

A lot of the attributes that attracted me to the 1-35 were also present in the SGS 1-34. I flew a 1-34, landed it no problem on the first try, but I found the cockpit to be very uncomfortable.

I settled on buying a PW-5 or a SZD 51-1 Junior. Both of these types would be an easy transition for me after soloing in an ASK-21. They are docile, have decent performance, and they stay up in weak lift. I'm better positioned to transition to a high performance glider down the road (compared to flying a 1-34 in the meantime).

[Dave Springford]

I completely agree with the comment about a flap-only glider and would advise against a 1-35 as a first glider unless you have lots of flap-only power time.

The problem is that flaps are digital, they are either on or off, unlike the analogue nature of spoilers where you can vary their position as required. With flaps, once they are on you are pretty much committed to that glide path until touch down.

The other issue with the 1-35, (based on my one flight in one) is that I found it about the most unstable glider I had ever flown. With most gliders you can take your hand of the stick and it keeps going straight. The 1-35 I flew instantly departed stable flight when I let go of the stick. After landing, I described as a glider balanced on the head of a pin.

Get an LS4 or Discus, or even a Standard Cirrus, or if you are small enough, a Libelle as your first ship.

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 7:44:42 PM UTC-4, Dave Springford wrote:
> I completely agree with the comment about a flap-only glider and would advise against a 1-35 as a first glider unless you have lots of flap-only power time.
>
>
>
> The problem is that flaps are digital, they are either on or off, unlike the analogue nature of spoilers where you can vary their position as required. With flaps, once they are on you are pretty much committed to that glide path until touch down.
>


Dave, that's complete BS, twice. But it illustrates nicely the single most peculiar aspect of buying a flap only ship: you get all sort and manner of unsolicited advice, much of it informed by little to no experience.

No offense, but this is a semi hot button issue. Flap transition guys need the best advice they can get. Not from guys with one flight.

-Evan Ludeman (ex HP-18, HP-14)

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 7:52:55 PM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Saturday, March 23, 2013 7:44:42 PM UTC-4, Dave Springford wrote:
>
> > I completely agree with the comment about a flap-only glider and would advise against a 1-35 as a first glider unless you have lots of flap-only power time.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The problem is that flaps are digital, they are either on or off, unlike the analogue nature of spoilers where you can vary their position as required. With flaps, once they are on you are pretty much committed to that glide path until touch down.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Dave, that's complete BS, twice. But it illustrates nicely the single most peculiar aspect of buying a flap only ship: you get all sort and manner of unsolicited advice, much of it informed by little to no experience.
>
>
>
> No offense, but this is a semi hot button issue. Flap transition guys need the best advice they can get. Not from guys with one flight.
>
>
>
> -Evan Ludeman (ex HP-18, HP-14)

I need to clarify: what's BS is "flaps are digital" and "once they are on you are committed". I do have reservations about flap only gliders as first high performance sailplanes because in general the owner *will* spend a year learning to land it well, etc., time that might be better spent flying XC. Flaps require a lot more finesse than spoilers, or flaps plus spoilers.

My $0.02.

Evan / T8

[Craig R.]

1-35. This was my first personal ship. Serial no. 12. I had several hundred hours in her and enjoyed every damn one of them. First cross country, silver badge, gold distance, first landout, etc. I've owned other ships since then, but I had as much or more fun in the 1-35 as I have had in any of them..
My prior “high performance” experience before the 1-35 was a few hours in a Blanik L13 and Lark IS-28b (learned in a 2-33). The transition to the full flapped ship was totally uneventful. My instructor and I worked up a plan and we took the time to do it right. Home field was 5000' x 150' asphalt, so if I made errors, I had LOTs of room to work it out. I did about 15 patterns (spot landings, crosswind, etc) and got the landing down pat before I ventured out. I see now that it is very difficult for most folks to spend the time to do the groundwork before they start doing the fun stuff.
My first landing was spectacular. It felt like I was standing on my feet in the glider with my nose pointed straight down. It was a bit intimidating. Keeping focused, I sorted out the timing to round out and then sweetly touched down. At altitude I would practice dumping flaps and observe how much the ship dropped. Ground effect was another fun aspect to play with the 80 degree flaps. All good times.
Being a mostly metal ship, I could leave it tied out and fly on the spur of the moment. That was very nice. The next owner kept it on the field and flew it twice as much as I did and enjoyed it even more than I did (if that was possible).
Regarding the prior comments about the difficulty of landing of a flap ship, they are totally unfounded. If you spend the time and become intimate with the landing characteristics, the 1-35 is easy to land and fun to fly.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 3/23/2013 4:39 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Saturday, March 23, 2013 4:13:28 PM UTC-4, Tim Weston wrote:
>> Does anyone have any inside info on the pros / cons of buying a 1-35. I
>> am interested in learning cross country.
>
> Since I'm at the same stage of glider piloting as you are, I thought that
> you might appreciate my perspective. It's a bit different than the more
> experienced pilots.
>
> To rephrase your question, "What are the pros and cons of a low-hour pilot
> buying a glider that has flaps only (no spoilers)?"
>
> Back in August 2012, I asked RAS "how does a pilot learn to fly a flaps
> only glider?" Not easily. There are very few tandem trainers that only
> have flaps.
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/rec.aviation.soaring/DqKTBzfdZxM
>
> What settled it for me was this. A former owner of a flaps-only glider
> privately communicated off-RAS that he had wasted an entire year teaching
> himself how to properly land a flaps only glider. He also pointed out that
> some of the 1-35 landings on Youtube and such are extremely long and inept.
> In other words, some pilots do a crappy job of flying 1-35s and live to
> upload videos of their efforts. The pilot who pointed this out to me is
> now accomplished in XC. For that and other reasons I consider him a
> reliable source. Not all advice is good advice on RAS.

<Snip...>

I'm in 100% agreement with Mr. Flubber's son's segment-ending sentence
immediately above. Free advice is worth every cent you pay for it, & it's up
to you to determine if there's anything of value in it to you...

Moreover, I've never flown a 1-35 (of any stripe) but I've a brother (not a
RASident) who bought a 1-35C as his first single-seat ship. Does that count?
:-) In any event, here comes free advice!

My brother flew his 1-35C 800 hours, going from badge-less to gold in it. He
next bought a PIK-20A (no spoilers), flew that several hundred more hours,
then went to the dark side and bought an LS-6. His 1-35 transition occurred
prior to the web appearing, and his research included picking my brain.

As to my (abbienormal?) brain, with ~125 total hours (all glider) I
transitioned from a 1-26 to a Concept-70 (15-meter, experimental glass, large
positive-only deflection flaps/no spoilers), flew it 50 hours, transitioned to
an HP-14 (even larger positive-only deflection flaps/no spoilers), flew it 195
hours then transitioned to a +75/-10 flapped Zuni (no spoilers, relatively
weenie flaps) and have flown it over 2,000 hours. The 1-26 to C-70 transition
occurred in 1975 at a time and place lacking internet, flap-experienced
instructors or 2-seaters with flaps of any sort. IOW, all my preparation was
"book 'larnin'" and mental.

My transition occurred at Heber City, UT (roughly 5,000' msl as I recall, on a
~4500' runway). My brother's (early 90's?) was at Frederick, MD. Both his and
my transitions were no-sweat (as visible-to-the-peanut-galleries) affairs,
suggesting either our mental preparation was adequate, we were naturally
superb pilots, or we were incredibly lucky. You get to decide. :-)

My broad brush advice concerning "transitioning and proper use" of large
deflection flaps tends to fall into the "they're no big deal to safely
transition to and use"...so long as Joe Glider Pilot (aka JGP) has in mind
(and believes!) a few fundamental truths regarding their use. If he believes,
then so will he act...

I'll tangentially note here that the only mental error I identified subsequent
to my C-70 transition, was a pre-1st-flight decision to not use more than
30-degrees of flap in order to avoid the "major pitch change" I was aware
accompanied full-deflection use. Thanks to the Very Large difference in clean
glide angle between 1-26 and C-70, on long final it quickly became apparent my
choices were: 1) overshoot with 30-degrees; 2) do one or more 360's on final;
or 3) use more flap (I used 'em all). Choosing option 3) was a
no-brainer...and a no-sweater, since I was/am a believer that pitch angle
falls out in the wash, if you believe "proper speed" matters in the landing
pattern (as I do, dry chuckle). BTW (writes this engineer), the "flap
associated pitch change" is largely "engineer speak" in the sense that ANY
glider with beaucoup drag WILL also require "major pitch-down" to maintain
speed when the boards are all out, as witness any full spoiler approach in
(say) a 2-32 or 1-34. Anyhow...

Fundamental Truth #1:
ANY flaps-only glider (including the massively-flapped HP-14) will happily
float the length of 4,000+ foot runways if flown into ground effect "too
fast", regardless of flap setting (i.e. relatively small OR full deflection).
Point being: adding some safety knots for Mom and the kids isn't wise in
flaps-only gliders...whereas when rounded out from "a proper approach speed"
any of them (including my weenily-flapped Zuni), can easily be plunked down
and stopped in a shorter distance than equivalent spoilered ships. As to
"proper approach speed", in the absence of manufacturer suggestions, standard
rules of thumb have worked well for me...after I've done "my usual" 3,000'
transition tow and stall/indicated ASI-calibration series. (In both the HP-14
and Zuni, I subsequently soared several hours prior to my initial landings.)
If for any reason JGP opts to fly high final "at some arbitrarily high safety
speed," the time to begin bleeding it off is in the early part of the
roundout, not the final (say) 3 vertical feet or so (which as-noted will
require a l-o-n-g runway!)...but I've rarely encountered pattern conditions
"opting me" to do that..certainly not on a transition condition day. IOW, I
recommend NOT "flying faster for extra safety" in flaps-only transition
flights...because it ISN'T safer. (Arguably, it's the opposite because it
unavoidably complicates the roundout/flare details).

Fundamental Truth #2:
It's MUCH easier to judge your roundout/touchdown location from a steep
approach than from a shallow approach...yet another rationale to not be afraid
to use as much flap drag as you need. If there's a 1-35 or PIK-20 at your home
field whose pilot regularly flies such approaches, you should have a sense of
how steep a glide angle full flap use will generate. There's no need to use
your drag early, as it's not necessary, and doing so will unnecessarily
complicate your approach by destabilizing it, just as if Joe Glider Pilot
opted to go back and forth from full spoiler to no spoiler in an approach. If
you KNOW you can generate a steeper glide angle than any previous ship you've
flown, why would you want to approach at prior ships' (relatively, compared to
your flapped bird) shallower glide angles? Stated another way, if I flew a
glider that could hover safely to a landing, I'd land that way every
time...but maybe that's just me!

Fundamental Truth #3:
If you come in low and slow in a flapped ship, you WILL land (crash?) short.
That said, ponder Truth #2 a bit more. Remember, we're talking transitioning
here, not squeezing 99% performance from yourself and ship on some off-field
landing quite possibly preceded by a whole bunch of dumb and dumber
decisions...there's simply no reason/excuse to EVER come in short in any ship
with gobs of drag. The draggier the ship, the easier (and higher) your
approach cone can (should) be. Point being, try and place every "con" existing
in your mind about large-deflection landing-flaps into some sort of context,
so's to make the best decision about ship choice of which you're capable. This
particular canard (always trotted out by the fearful and/or
less-than-informed), is bushwah nonsense (albeit accurate within a limited,
theoretical, sense). Tangentially, if you're aiming at the very approach end
of the runway on your transition flights for any reason, well...maybe you
shouldn't be. :-)

Clearly, flaps-only gliders aren't for everyone. Clearly not every pilot of
one is extraordinarily skillful. (I've always considered myself a
"workmanlike" pilot with a healthy desire to not break my neck.) Less clearly,
large-deflection landing-flapped gliders are the shortest-landing,
most-landing-fun gliders yet devised. Yeah, there're a number of You Tube
videos showing some (ahem!) rather ragged approaches and landings in such
ships...from which a savvy observer can get reinforced what NOT to do, and
from which to maybe even glean some bits of "why not." There're also some You
Tube examples of well flown patterns, including some by Wayne Paul in an HP-14
using full flaps, from which you can determine his roundout-stop distance is
somewhere between 200 and 300 feet. My shortest-ever ground roll in my HP-14
was 3 (paced off) fuselage lengths into a 3-5 knot, light, late evening
breeze. Five hundred feet was my planning purposes distance when "on" in my
Zuni flying.

Your mileage WILL vary...

Bob W.

P.S. Have fun with your search and transition!

P.P.S. As recently stated in another post, keep asking "Why do you recommend
that?" of every purveyor of advice, until you understand the reasoning...with
which you may not agree. I've tried to include my "why's" above.

[Dave Springford]

> No offense, but this is a semi hot button issue. Flap transition guys need the best advice they can get. Not from guys with one flight.
>

Wow - I guess you don't know me!

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 3/23/2013 5:44 PM, Dave Springford wrote:
> I completely agree with the comment about a flap-only glider and would
> advise against a 1-35 as a first glider unless you have lots of flap-only
> power time.
No problem with that advice (even though I do not agree with it, reasons - or
at least examples - why I disagree noted in another post in this same thread)...

>
> The problem is that flaps are digital, they are either on or off, unlike
> the analogue nature of spoilers where you can vary their position as
> required. With flaps, once they are on you are pretty much committed to
> that glide path until touch down.
Um - no offense intended, Dave - but this is utter nonsense. In my -
hydraulically-actuated, more or less "single-shot" flapped HP-14, I flew every
approach (but two) always adding flaps...but that was only because the flap
actuation system didn't lend itself to modulation, and, it had so much drag
there was no NEED to ever modulate/decrease added drag...it had roughly a
somewhere between 2:1 to 4:1 glide angle with full flaps, near as I bothered
to quantify. In my - relatively weenily flapped w. consequently considerably
shallower approach cone (7:1 it's doing good) - Zuni with a "1-35C-like flap
actuation system," approaches (particularly in vertically gnarly conditions)
were regularly flown with flap modulation, sometimes from full on to full off.
It's no big deal, though doing so does require matching (not particularly
difficult...dare I say intuitive?) pitch inputs to maintain a consistent
speed. And of course, all our approaches are flown at a consistent speed, eh?

Now, roundout time I'd agree is no time to be messing with flaps...just as
it's no time to be messing with spoilers, except maybe for the relatively more
experienced in type pilot, possibly practicing something or other...


>
> The other issue with the 1-35, (based on my one flight in one) is that I
> found it about the most unstable glider I had ever flown. With most
> gliders you can take your hand of the stick and it keeps going straight.
> The 1-35 I flew instantly departed stable flight when I let go of the
> stick. After landing, I described as a glider balanced on the head of a
> pin.

I've never flown one, but 1st-generation Standard Cirri have been similarly
'head of a pin' described to me by several active-in-them pilots when we've
compared notes, as has (e.g.) the 1-36 'Sprite'. I think my
1st-high-performance-ship, 1-35C-owning brother would generally concur with
your 'head of a pin' assessment (I seem to recall he used that very expression
in a letter to me, in fact), though he personally ultimately found it to be an
asset, particularly on weak, rattily thermalled days, since the ship 'talked
to him' so much.

>
> Get an LS4 or Discus, or even a Standard Cirrus, or if you are small
> enough, a Libelle as your first ship.

Ruh roh. There's that pesky St'd Cirrus again! See above comment...
- - - - - -

To the OP, the above exchange beautifully illustrates the unavoidable
perplexities to be found in free advice!


Bob - believes some free advice is better than others - W.

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:01:14 PM UTC-4, Dave Springford wrote:
> > No offense, but this is a semi hot button issue. Flap transition guys need the best advice they can get. Not from guys with one flight.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Wow - I guess you don't know me!

We've met. You seemed to know what you were doing, and then some. But I'll call baloney on bad landing flap advice from *anyone* just because I had to deal with so damned much of it when I was trying to come to terms with my old HP. If you had even 30 good flap only (Schleicher don't count) landings, you would not have given the advise you gave above.

regards,
Evan / T8

[[email protected][_2_]]

Tim,

Check out this website dedicated to the 1-35, and with contributions from happy owners.

My total glider time was only 35 hours when I bought mine. Granted, my power-plane rating was helpful, but flaps are no mystery following training. And if short landings are your thing, this glider does that well.

Raul Boerner

http://members.goldengate.net/~tmrent/soar/docs/135/sgs135new.htm

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 4:13:28 PM UTC-4, Tim Weston wrote:
> Does anyone have any inside info on the pros / cons of buying a 1-35. I am interested in learning cross country. I am mostly looking to hear from any current or former 1-35 owners.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tim W

The thing that's sort of jumbled around in this discussion but deserves to be explicitly stated: the transition to flaps only does need to be addressed head on, and results that come out are largely dependent upon the quality of the inputs, including you, your instructor, your pre-transition study, the glider, the airport environment. the hardest thing to find for most guys is a CFIG with a hundred full flap landings. Lacking a flap qualified CFIG, things get rather more luck dependent than we like to see in aviation. Often the whole thing goes great, sometimes it goes very badly (1st flight, PIK 20B. This gentleman over shot whole airport, pulled up, tried to make a 180, spun, saved by trees).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks2TM2VOmaw

Gives a whole new meaning to "see and avoid", doesn't it?

The normal expectation (with "good inputs") is passable airport landings immediately, precision landings with some practice, expert low energy landings with a lot of practice.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Justin Craig[_3_]]

I have never flown a 1-35, but I am sure you could get a better first
glider. It all depends on your aspirations.

Somebody else gave the advice of a Libelle / Standard Cirrus or Discus. All
really good gliders and competitive in the Club Class as well.

Don't worry about the transition to flaps, its quite simple really. Push
forward to go faster and pull back to slow down and thermal. Pull back a
little further to land.

When you fly a flapped glider for the first time, get a good briefing from
somebody who will no over complicate matters!

At 20:13 23 March 2013, wrote:
>Does anyone have any inside info on the pros / cons of buying a 1-35. I
am
>interested in learning cross country. I am mostly looking to hear from
any
>current or former 1-35 owners.
>
>Thanks,
>Tim W
>

[son_of_flubber]

On Sunday, March 24, 2013 11:02:04 AM UTC-4, Justin Craig wrote:
> I have never flown a 1-35

How many flights have you had with a flaps-only glider? (I'm not interested in your experience with a flaps + spoilers glider.)

[Dan Marotta]

I gotta laugh at the "head of a pin" analogy. Years back I swapped my LS-6a
with a friend for his ASW-20 (B, I think - it had the stiff wings). He
described the '6 by placing his hand, palm down, on a raised indes finger
(head of a pin). I thought the '20 was horribly stiff on the ailerons.

So, I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder...

BTW, I enjoyed flying the 1-35 before buying my first ship - a Mosquito.


"Bob Whelan" > wrote in message
...
> On 3/23/2013 5:44 PM, Dave Springford wrote:
>> I completely agree with the comment about a flap-only glider and would
>> advise against a 1-35 as a first glider unless you have lots of flap-only
>> power time.
> No problem with that advice (even though I do not agree with it, reasons -
> or at least examples - why I disagree noted in another post in this same
> thread)...
>
>>
>> The problem is that flaps are digital, they are either on or off, unlike
>> the analogue nature of spoilers where you can vary their position as
>> required. With flaps, once they are on you are pretty much committed to
>> that glide path until touch down.
> Um - no offense intended, Dave - but this is utter nonsense. In my -
> hydraulically-actuated, more or less "single-shot" flapped HP-14, I flew
> every approach (but two) always adding flaps...but that was only because
> the flap actuation system didn't lend itself to modulation, and, it had so
> much drag there was no NEED to ever modulate/decrease added drag...it had
> roughly a somewhere between 2:1 to 4:1 glide angle with full flaps, near
> as I bothered to quantify. In my - relatively weenily flapped w.
> consequently considerably shallower approach cone (7:1 it's doing good) -
> Zuni with a "1-35C-like flap actuation system," approaches (particularly
> in vertically gnarly conditions) were regularly flown with flap
> modulation, sometimes from full on to full off. It's no big deal, though
> doing so does require matching (not particularly difficult...dare I say
> intuitive?) pitch inputs to maintain a consistent speed. And of course,
> all our approaches are flown at a consistent speed, eh?
>
> Now, roundout time I'd agree is no time to be messing with flaps...just as
> it's no time to be messing with spoilers, except maybe for the relatively
> more experienced in type pilot, possibly practicing something or other...
>
>
>>
>> The other issue with the 1-35, (based on my one flight in one) is that I
>> found it about the most unstable glider I had ever flown. With most
>> gliders you can take your hand of the stick and it keeps going straight.
>> The 1-35 I flew instantly departed stable flight when I let go of the
>> stick. After landing, I described as a glider balanced on the head of a
>> pin.
>
> I've never flown one, but 1st-generation Standard Cirri have been
> similarly 'head of a pin' described to me by several active-in-them pilots
> when we've compared notes, as has (e.g.) the 1-36 'Sprite'. I think my
> 1st-high-performance-ship, 1-35C-owning brother would generally concur
> with your 'head of a pin' assessment (I seem to recall he used that very
> expression in a letter to me, in fact), though he personally ultimately
> found it to be an asset, particularly on weak, rattily thermalled days,
> since the ship 'talked to him' so much.
>
>>
>> Get an LS4 or Discus, or even a Standard Cirrus, or if you are small
>> enough, a Libelle as your first ship.
>
> Ruh roh. There's that pesky St'd Cirrus again! See above comment...
> - - - - - -
>
> To the OP, the above exchange beautifully illustrates the unavoidable
> perplexities to be found in free advice!
>
>
> Bob - believes some free advice is better than others - W.

[Dave Nadler]

Tim, the 1-35 is a fine glider. As with any transition to flaps-only,
the 1-35 requires careful training with an **appropriately qualified**
instructor; do that and you will have absolutely no problems.
Enjoy it !
Best Regards, Dave (who has flown 1-35, C-70, HP-14, Monerai, etc,
and currently owns an RHJ-8 in addition to an Antares 20E).

[BobW]

On 3/23/2013 11:43 PM, Wayne Paul wrote:
> Tim,
>
> This thread brings back a lot of memories of the advice I was given when I
> purchased my first Schreder sailplane, most of which was erroneous. I only
> had about 10 hours in a Ka-6E prior to purchasing an HP-16.

<Snip>

> BTW, the HP-14 has the most powerful flaps of all the flap-only gliders.
>
> Bob, do you really think a '14 with the flaps set at 90 degrees would float in
> ground effect the length of a 4,000 ft runway?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXwy7dsLndM
>
> Wayne
> Moderator Yahoo hp-gliders news group
> Webmaster Schreder Sailplane Designs website
>

My observational/PIC experience matches Wayne's claim above...i.e. I've never
encountered a flaps-only glider with more powerful flaps than an HP-14.

As noted elsewhere, my PIC experience includes C-70, HP-14 (short span,
long-flap version), & Zuni.

My observational experience adds 1-35 (retract & Club), PIK-20A/B, HP-16,
HP-18, AS W-20 (all have spoilers, but I'm referring to the large
flap-deflection versions here), Monerai and possibly a few more I'm forgetting.

As to the question, "[D]o you really think a '14 with the flaps set at 90
degrees would float in ground effect the length of a 4,000 ft runway?" my
short form answer is, "Yes." Reason? The "float tendency" is "excess speed
dependent." Every flapped ship I've seen and flown has exhibited similar
behavior in ground effect with full flaps...a *marked* decrease in apparent
drag and increase in "floating tendency." The more "safety speed" Joe Pilot
brings close to the ground, the (rapidly) worsening the tendency to float.
I've no idea how much "excess safety speed" an HP-14 might need before it
floated off the end of the runway compared to (say) a 1-35, and it would
certainly be more than required by a 1-35, but my takeaway point for folks
considering transitioning to large-deflection flaps-only ships is "excess
safety speed" carried through the roundout, likely won't be increasing their
immediate future's safety.

Like practicing inadvertent departures from controlled flight in the landing
pattern, my recommendation for carrying "excess safety speed for Mom and the
kids" in these ships, is; "Kids, don't do it."

That said, if anyone DOES find themselves floating undesiredly and rapidly
toward the far end of the runway in full-flapped ground effect, I'd next
recommend they simply begin reducing the flap setting as rapidly and "pitch
steadily" as possible, because their 3 remaining reasonably safe options are
now: 1) float with full flaps until the end of the runway or touchdown,
whichever arrives first; 2) reduce flaps/settle/touchdown/brake as heavily as
possible/groundloop if necessary; or 3) initiate the groundloop while still
aloft (Yech!). My recommendation is option 2, based on the float lengths I've
seen (always by other pilots) vs. the effectiveness of "typical glider wheel
brakes."

Stated another way, if conditions require "excess safety speed" (and any
transition-to-a-new-ship day, shouldn't), I'm a believer in getting rid of the
excess speed where it's safest to do so (duh! ;-)), which - IMO - in a
flaps-only ship is (for discussional purposes) in the "final 15 or so vertical
feet (and not the final vertical 3 feet). I never botched things so badly I
"dropped in" from a personal "fright height" either the C-70 (PIK-20-like
flaps) or HP-14. In both ships, even a botched (too rapid) roundout with full
flaps resulted in sufficient downwash from the flaps that - when I simply
halted my aft-stick movement the instant I recognized a "serious balloon" -
the ships ultimately settled to earth relatively gently. My guess is my worst
such "drop in" may've been from 2 feet or so, but I don't know. I know it
SEEMED much higher, but I never had anyone from the peanut gallery tell me
afterwards they thought I was going to bust the ship or my back.

The Zuni I did (twice? thrice?) "full-flap drop in" from sufficient height I
was worried for the ship...because - due to its relatively weenier flaps, drag
and downwash - it ballooned higher more rapidly before I caught it, and once
at the top of the arc, there's nothing one can do but (if sufficiently bold)
continue increasing aft force until critical AoA is reached, or, simply wait
(and count on downwash to cushion things...this is what I generally did).
Reducing AoA with forward stick "trying to maintain (reducing) speed" isn't
desirable. (Ask me how I know.)
- - - - - -

For anyone reading this while in a position of considering transitioning to a
large-deflection landing-flap-only ship, understand I'm touching upon
something that is completely - and entirely safely - avoidable simply by not
carrying "excess safety speed" in such ships. My experience - both PIC and as
a member of the peanut gallery - has been that none of the nuance expressed
above will be "necessary" if Joe Glider Pilot simply flies his approaches in
such ships using the usual "generally accepted by competent and knowledgeable
instructors" rules of thumb for choosing (in the absence of manufacturer
recommendations) an approach speed sensible to that needed to transition to
any new-to-him spoilered ship.

In broad brush terms, arguably the WORST thing a wannabe large-deflection
landing-flap-only transitionee can do - IMHO - is buy into "the intimidation
factor" so prevalent in the free advice world. Why? Because much of the advice
therefrom is not only confusing, contradictory and unnecessary, but actively
harmful.

Coupla examples spring immediately to mind (in no particular order)...
1) Big Intimidating Pitch Changes Required!!!
2) Not Enough Energy to Round-Out!!!
3) In Speed Lies Safety!!!
4) Reduce Flap Setting at the Risk of your Life!!!
5) Difficult to Judge Glide Path (because of pitch changes)!!!

I'm probably overlooking some others, but just to quickly attempt to provide a
measure of sensible counterpoint to the above canards...
1)Better not fly a Schweizer 1-34 or 2-32, then...
2) Utter rubbish. (I used to regularly fly "back of the polar curve"
approaches in my HP-14 in calm [e.g. late evening] conditions, and not once
felt I was marginal on roundout energy. In fact, the slower the approach, the
more time-available/easier-it-was to assess precisely when the final roundout
should begin.)
3) Discussed above.
4) Nonsense. Pitch falls out in the wash of airspeed control, regardless of
the ship being flown. (As noted elsewhere in this thread, vertically gnarly
pattern conditions in the weenily-flapped Zuni regularly occasioned the need
for this technique. In the [far more draggy HP-14] I once dumped full -
hydraulically actuated, "instantaneously"-dumping-by-air-pressure, flaps at
~300'agl on short final during a thunderstorm approach because I WAS going to
overshoot due to "cloud suck", and did a go-around. In my judgment the risk
associated with the overshoot (deep ravine on the west side of the old Black
Forest E-W strip) exceeded the risk associated with dumping the flaps, and the
low-starting-altitude go-around. By far the greater risk in the option I chose
was the go-around bit, not the flap-position-change bit, but at least a failed
go-around would have me contacting level prairie instead of a tree-studded
ravine. For the record, I never should have placed myself or the ship in that
day's position...)
5) More nonsense. (The steeper the approach, the easier judging one's roundout
point becomes. The time delay establishing the new, speed-stabilized
pitch/flight-path change coincident with your new flap position was probably
no more than 2 seconds in the HP-14 [whose flaps came down ~20-degrees per
pump of the hydraulic handle], and with each pitch down, the roundout point
became more easily identified..not that it ever was difficult.)

RAS is (probably) a lousy place to discuss stuff like this, but being someone
more inclined toward accuracy than toward "good hangar tale
hyperbole/inaccuracy," I occasionally feel the need to attempt to limit the
spread of less than informative, and sometimes outright unhelpful,
contentions. I'll go take my meds, now...

Bob W.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 3/24/2013 7:03 AM, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Saturday, March 23, 2013 4:13:28 PM UTC-4, Tim Weston wrote:
>> Does anyone have any inside info on the pros / cons of buying a 1-35. I
>> am interested in learning cross country. I am mostly looking to hear from
>> any current or former 1-35 owners.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tim W
>
> The thing that's sort of jumbled around in this discussion but deserves to
> be explicitly stated: the transition to flaps only does need to be
> addressed head on, and results that come out are largely dependent upon the
> quality of the inputs, including you, your instructor, your pre-transition
> study, the glider, the airport environment. the hardest thing to find for
> most guys is a CFIG with a hundred full flap landings. Lacking a flap
> qualified CFIG, things get rather more luck dependent than we like to see
> in aviation. Often the whole thing goes great, sometimes it goes very
> badly (1st flight, PIK 20B. This gentleman over shot whole airport, pulled
> up, tried to make a 180, spun, saved by trees).
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks2TM2VOmaw
>
> Gives a whole new meaning to "see and avoid", doesn't it?
>
> The normal expectation (with "good inputs") is passable airport landings
> immediately, precision landings with some practice, expert low energy
> landings with a lot of practice.
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8
>

"What Evan said."
- - - - - -

At the risk of thread drift...regarding "expert low energy landings with a lot
of practice" my experience has been that "expert low energylandings" came a
lot more easily the"flap draggier" the glider.

HP-14: "expert low energy landings with [a lot of] practice" might accurately
be written, "expert low energy landings with [some more] practice."

Zuni: "What Evan wrote."

Nuance, sure. I take it as more evidence, "You can't have too much disposable
drag" when it comes to ease and safety of landing a glider. Straw poll
question: What's more likely to result in a crunch - full spoiler practice or
no spoiler practice? Why?

Bob W.

[Paul Villinski]

Tim, a 1-35 (serial no. 33) was my first glider in 2004. I transitioned into it with 25 hours PIC time, mostly in the club 1-34. I flew 230 hours in it and did Silver and Gold badges. My instructor, UH, was expert with flaps-only ships, and made the switch from dive brakes to flaps quite simple for me. My first landings were not stylish but none were unsafe, and they improved rapidly. With proper energy control, the 1-35 can make a very steep approach (useful for getting into a small field over tall trees). Visibility with the nose pitched downward on final approach is terrific. Stall speed with full flaps is 37 knots, IIRC. I never had any trouble at all with the two-stage flap handle -- it's simply a process you internalize.

I thought it was a great first ship and great for beginning XC flying. The stout aluminum construction was reassuring and I felt the cockpit was sturdier than a comparably priced first generation fiberglass glider -- important to me as a beginner as I expected to screw-up occassionally. I liked the fact that it has a nose skid -- if I landed long and was in danger of hitting the fence, I had the option of pushing it over onto the skid to aid in stopping, which I did on at least one of many off-field landings.

I usually assembled Saturday morning and kept it tied out overnight, putting it back in the trailer Sunday evening for the week. If I still had it I would probably keep it tied out all season now, with a set of covers on it.

There were many things I loved about it -- little things, like the clever design of the locking mechanism for the demountable horizontal stabilizers, which provided triple redundancy. I loved the flaps for really slow thermalling.
The wings "oil can" in strong lift, making a distinctive sound, which I came to enjoy as the sound of being rapidly hoisted aloft. In my first and (so far) only regional contest, I had the only aluminum glider in the field, and people kept referring to it as "that thing," as in "I like how you fly that thing." There is something to be said for flying an "everyday Joe" kind of glider that doesn't raise expectations too high....

My least favorite thing was the relatively high control forces needed on the stick -- the result of cable actuated ailerons, rather than pushrods.

If you can, get the earlier iteration with retractable gear. I was only interested in one that had the forward hinged canopy modification done. With the canopy carefully sealed, it was very quiet. As many people will say, buy the best trailer you can find -- I actually traded up from the lovingly built but slowly deteriorating enclosed wooden trailer it came with, to a nice aluminum tube type, and that made a big difference.

I heartily recommend the 1-35. The handicap and performance is about on par with other gliders in the same price range or costing a little more. They seem to be quite desirable for some -- I sold mine in a week. You will feel comfortable landing it in a pasture, knowing it's strong. I think I might still be flying it except that I opted to get a self-launcher, for the freedom it gives me to fly when and where I want. My current TeST 10M has almost the same performance as the 1-35 -- if Schweizer had built a 1-35 self-launcher, I would probably be flying that....

Go for it and enjoy -- happy full-flap low-energy landings!

[Tony[_5_]]

A little late to the party. I love flaps only approaches. My experience is highly limited to one glider, the Neidrauer NG-1, a modified BG-12/16. It has large chord large span flaps. I've never seen an HP-14 so don't know how it compares in size/effectiveness but when I did my first flights in the glider the problem was coming in short not going long. Full flaps and 55-60 mph gives a measured glide angle of 5:1 or so. How can you not like that? I do think it is important for would-be flap only pilots to read through discussions such as this one. Having some airplane time can't hurt, especially in the large flap Cessnas from days gone by. Shooting an hour of power off landings in an old 40 deg flap 150 will help you get the idea of how flaps affect the glide angle and sight picture with the comfort of a CFI next to you.

I've never seen a problem when I modulate flaps in the pattern in practically the same manner as i modulate airbrakes. However you have to remember that with each flap change there must be a corresponding pitch attitude change. Go from full to none and keep the nose pointed down and that is exactly where you will go.

[Wayne Paul]

Tony,

The HP-14 was built in two configurations. On one the flaps were
extended/retracted with a gear/track crank system allowing the flap setting
to be easily modulated. The other had a hydraulic jack system which made
extending the flaps at higher speeds easier; however, controlling the flap
retraction was near impossible. Thus the term "dumping the flaps." (Think
hydraulic trailer ramp jack.)

As mentioned before, Bob Kuykendall has written an article to assist in the
transition which is worth reading.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Stories/Preparing_for_first_HP_flight.htm

Maybe you could Steve Leonard into letting you fly HP-14 serial number 1 so
you can learn more about its' handling characteristics . :-)

Wayne


"Tony" wrote in message
...

A little late to the party. I love flaps only approaches. My experience is
highly limited to one glider, the Neidrauer NG-1, a modified BG-12/16. It
has large chord large span flaps. I've never seen an HP-14 so don't know how
it compares in size/effectiveness but when I did my first flights in the
glider the problem was coming in short not going long. Full flaps and 55-60
mph gives a measured glide angle of 5:1 or so. How can you not like that? I
do think it is important for would-be flap only pilots to read through
discussions such as this one. Having some airplane time can't hurt,
especially in the large flap Cessnas from days gone by. Shooting an hour of
power off landings in an old 40 deg flap 150 will help you get the idea of
how flaps affect the glide angle and sight picture with the comfort of a CFI
next to you.

I've never seen a problem when I modulate flaps in the pattern in
practically the same manner as i modulate airbrakes. However you have to
remember that with each flap change there must be a corresponding pitch
attitude change. Go from full to none and keep the nose pointed down and
that is exactly where you will go.

[[email protected]]

I trasitioned to a 1-35 as a low time pilot. I remember my first flight I got confused and flew the whole tow in -2 flap setting. I survived. Fun glider. No vices.

The only thing I did not like is that the pilot sits with his head behind the leading edge of the wing root. To see laterally you have to lean forward.

Mark

[Bob Kuykendall]

> On 3/23/2013 5:44 PM, Dave Springford wrote:
> > The problem is that flaps are digital, they are either on or off, unlike
> > the analogue nature of spoilers...

On Mar 23, 7:16 pm, Bob Whelan > wrote:
> Um - no offense intended, Dave - but this is utter nonsense.

Not to be dogpiling this issue, but Bob (the other Bob) is right, and
Dave is way off base here. Really, I have to wonder where ideas like
that come from.

With only a little bit of practice, it is possible and practical to
modulate flap extension through the entire range from full negative to
full positive, and I have in fact done that very thing pretty
regularly.

The key thing to understand is that using large-span flaps takes what
I call "feed forward." If you change the flap setting and then wait
for feedback from the instruments and from your senses about your
speed and angle of attack, you will end up way behind the airplane. If
you wait for feedback, you'll end up stuck in a feedback loop.
Instead, you use feed-forward. As you deploy the flaps, you apply
forward pressure on the stick at the same time. As you retract the
flaps, you apply rearward pressure. You can adjust the amount of
pressure later based on sensory input; but any pressure change in the
right direction is way better than none at all.

Even though I am developing a glider with conventional airbrakes, I
would make one with landing flaps if I thought I could sell them that
way. Flaps give the very best bang for the buck in glidepath control,
and I miss the safety and security they always afforded me.

Thanks, Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Peter[_13_]]

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 4:13:28 PM UTC-4, Tim Weston wrote:
> Does anyone have any inside info on the pros / cons of buying a 1-35. I am interested in learning cross country. I am mostly looking to hear from any current or former 1-35 owners.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tim W

I fly a 1-35. The cockpit is too small in the the cold/wave when heavy boots and heavy clothing is needed. FYI, I am 5'10" and 170lbs. Flaps are manageable, but I prefer spoilers because if you get low with flaps and reduce the amount of flaps the first thing that will happen is that you will loose lift . When you reduce spoilers the first thing that happens is you gain lift. Which would you rather do when you get low and have to reduce your glide path control?

[[email protected]]

On Monday, March 25, 2013 4:27:37 PM UTC-4, Peter wrote:
> On Saturday, March 23, 2013 4:13:28 PM UTC-4, Tim Weston wrote: > Does anyone have any inside info on the pros / cons of buying a 1-35. I am interested in learning cross country. I am mostly looking to hear from any current or former 1-35 owners. > > > > Thanks, > > Tim W I fly a 1-35. The cockpit is too small in the the cold/wave when heavy boots and heavy clothing is needed. FYI, I am 5'10" and 170lbs. Flaps are manageable, but I prefer spoilers because if you get low with flaps and reduce the amount of flaps the first thing that will happen is that you will loose lift . When you reduce spoilers the first thing that happens is you gain lift. Which would you rather do when you get low and have to reduce your glide path control?

If you are flying a glider that uses landing flaps for glide path control, you have a large range of combinations of flap setting and angle of attack that provide the same amount of lift with a huge variation in available drag.
If flying at an appropriate pattern speed( my definition of this is not ever below flaps up stall speed until in the flare), you always have the option to raise the flaps and increase the angle of attack. This puts the pilot in the same condition as the one that closed his spoilers. Bob K rightly described the needed feed forward technique.
Given the steep approach abilities of most flapped ships, there isn't really much reason to be low enough to make huge changes in flap settings.
The 1-35 has one feature that is quite useful in that it has a flap stop that requires a positive action to raise the flaps to less than, 30 degrees if I remember correctly. This is the range where the lift changes the most(0 to 30 degrees)yet the drag rise is moderate.
I teach transitioning 1-35 pilots to put the flaps in 30 on downwind(assuming angles look right) and add flap when they stert to look high. It works quite well.
UH

[AGL]

On Monday, 25 March 2013 17:31:52 UTC-4, wrote:

> I teach transitioning 1-35 pilots to put the flaps in 30 on downwind(assuming angles look right) and add flap when they stert to look high. It works quite well.

I own a 1-35 and have about 75 landings in it. You're right! Your advice is what it says to do in the POH. As I've posted before, people get quite confused about the poor, complex, and contradictory advice given about 1-35's. Ignoring it all and using the POH method gives the best results as you have outlined. It's simple and works very well. Using it, my first landing was one of my best, until I started trying variations.

Thanks for mentioning the issue "If flying at an appropriate pattern speed( my definition of this is not ever below flaps up stall speed until in the flare)" Stall speed is very slow with full flaps, so if you fly that slow and move the flaps to zero there is going to be a problem unless you remember to keep the airspeed up appropriately.

[atmoehrke%[email protected]]

This has already been worked over too much but I need to cast my ballot. It was not hard to learn to use flaps thanks in part to guidance from Evan five years ago. I now have 350 hours in type and strongly endorse the view that you can reduce or “modulate” flap settings in the landing pattern. But obviously not at roundout. Putting aside that issue, the ship lands on a dime which is peace of mind for beginning XC pilots. It’s also a real floater in light air which helps you avoid the landout challenge.

[[email protected]]

Dear Tim: wondering if you ever bought a ship. 1-35C has fixed gear, simpler flap lever. Great in light conditions and I have made several 300-400+k flights in flat country in mine. I'm putting up for sale...

[[email protected]]

Tim,

I had 35 hours total glider time at the purchase of my 1-35. The flap-issue was a non-issue for me largely because of my powered plane experience. Whether or not a glider has flaps should not be an obstacle; either way, you will require training.

This is a great glider. Especially for getting into cross-country flying. It lands very short, especially during landouts.

Being metal helps when it comes to fixing those hangar rash dents you will likely get here and there. Metal mechanics are very available. This is a good glider to learning ownership.

If you don't already know, there is a 1-35 website that can answer most of your questions. My belief is that you later on won't have problems selling the glider. I now own an LS-6 and wish that I had the brain power to maintain two gliders; in which case, I would have kept the 1-35, too.

Raul Boerner

[[email protected]]

Did you ever sell your 1:35?

[Boise Pilot]

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-6, Tim Weston wrote:
> Does anyone have any inside info on the pros / cons of buying a 1-35. I am interested in learning cross country. I am mostly looking to hear from any current or former 1-35 owners.
>
> Thanks,
> Tim W

Tim,
I owned a 1-35C for a number of years, it was my first glider. I trained on spoiler ships -Blanik & SGS 2-32. Yes my first landing was exciting and a few after were part of the learning curve but after that I found it easy to fly and land - extremely short distances... I did up through my silver and one diamond before I sold it. Mine was a later addition so it did not have the talked about, two part flap handle. The one handle with detentes and an adjustable range during landing worked great. I flew then and still do, in Idaho where thermals are strong and high. Yes, it took me a bit longer to get where all the fancy plastic guys went but I found it nice to fly and performance was what one would expect for a metal ship. It was an easy transition to my next glider a Mosquito. Tom

[[email protected]]

Is the 1-35 still for sale?
Dave

[C-FFKQ (42)]

There's a 1-35 for sale near Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

I can put you in contact with the owner, if you wish.

[[email protected]]

I'm a high-time CFI-G who goes way back (got my CFI at 19 in 1970) and has flow a lot of gliders, currently own a Discus B and a Ka-6CR.

I like the 1-35, recommend it with some qualifications to any soaring pilot who flies in weaker-condition soaring, and is looking for a good 15-20 k$ sailplane. You do need to learn how to handle flaps. There is a very simple drill for this: go find a pilot (preferably CFI), who has access to a Cessna 150 (not 152). Doesn't matter whether it's got electric flaps or Johnson bar. Go through the following drill: flying at 80 kts run the flaps down to full and back up while you maintain 80 kts. You will be amazed at how nose-down you are at full flaps. Do this drill until it is natural. This closely approximates what any of the full-flapped gliders feel like to land in terms of pitch angle vs flap settings on approach.

Good points about the 1-35:

low wing-loading empty, very good weak-condition performer. Good club/sport class ship in weaker soaring areas. With water, flies pretty well in strong conditions

Once you learn to fly it, can land extremely short, handle rough field conditions

Strong, safe

Bad points: Roll-rate is a bit slow. You'll start to lust for a Pik 20-B, that isn't much more expensive and has considerably higher performance.

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> Does anyone have any inside info on the pros / cons of buying a 1-35. I am interested in learning cross country. I am mostly looking to hear from any current or former 1-35 owners.
>
> Thanks,
> Tim W

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> Does anyone have any inside info on the pros / cons of buying a 1-35. I am interested in learning cross country. I am mostly looking to hear from any current or former 1-35 owners.
>
> Thanks,
> Tim W

Hi,

I had one flight in a 1-35. It was loaned to me by a friend when my ASW-15 was in the custody of the Gehrlein brothers getting an annual. My friend said once the flaps are on when landing, just fly by airspeed regardless of the angle, when you get near the runway flare. I followed his advice and had a good landing after a very nice soaring flight. I think a 1-35 is a a good airplane especially at the end of the day when all you need to do is tie it down when landing after others are on the ground wresting with wings and putting planes in trailers. You get to pop your first beer along with the earlier arrivals, and start to lie about your magnificent flight.

George Frost, AKA Frosty the Towman

[[email protected]]

If you can still find a clean 1-35 with proper wing profile, you need to treat it well. Easy to assemble for every flight.

Leave it out and the paint and bondo will fail.

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 at 4:13:28 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Does anyone have any inside info on the pros / cons of buying a 1-35. I am interested in learning cross country. I am mostly looking to hear from any current or former 1-35 owners.
>
> Thanks,
> Tim W

You can tie it down outside

[[email protected]]

If you find a clean one it's awesome. If it still has original Bondo profiling don't tie it down outside. I had a good one-man set-up and assembled for almost every flight for 10 years. No regrets.

[jackson maddux]

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Does anyone have any inside info on the pros / cons of buying a 1-35. I am interested in learning cross country. I am mostly looking to hear from any current or former 1-35 owners.
>
> Thanks,
> Tim W

I am a brand-new 1-35 pilot (about 4 hours now). I have about 90 hours in gliders and 540 hours total time. Gliders I've flown: ASK-21, jr., owl, DG-1000, Blanik L-23, Grob 103, and a Grob 102 astir.

The 1-35 is a sweet ship. In MN the other day, we had 3-5kt lift in relatively closely spaced thermals. Centering the thermals was easy, the light weight of the glider allowed me to shoot right up to about 6000MSL (ground level 900MSL).

The plane flew like a dream and I am very, very happy with it. It was hard to get back on the ground in moderate lift because the glide ratio is so good. The metal seat pan is "fixable" with a chute and some camping foam. I've seen some nice padded seats on wings and wheels in 1-35's, but my plane partner and I are currently enjoying our "dirtbag" metal glider that is out-performing some of the fancy-looking glass ships.

The assembly is straightforward, but you have to be precise and patient to get everything to line up. IF you do it right, there's minimal resistance to fitting the pieces together (I'm still working on that).

In regard to the bondo: we had a NY pizza slice sized piece fly off when I flew it for 2.5 hours. My plane partner, who grew up on wood sailboats, had it fixed with new bondo and paint in about 10 minutes. Other than a slight change in the paint color, it looked seamless. My plane partner used to own a jantar and stated to me that he is already much happier with the simplicity of the metal 1-35. He regaled me with stories of having to worry about all sorts of things with fiberglass. No such worries with metal, paint and bondo.

The way I got used to the 1-35's flaps was to follow the POH advice as well as the advice of Tom Rent (of the SGS 1-35 webpage fame: http://members.goldengate.net/~tmrent/soar/docs/135/sgs135new.htm). I was towed up on my first flight to 5000MSL. I then ran through every flap setting and paid attention to the site picture at about 50-60 knots indicated airspeed. With 80 degree flaps, you have to really push forward on the stick to keep your speed above 50kts. AS Tom Rent told me and my plane partner, it should feel like you are standing on the rudder pedals, looking straight down at the ground. It was disconcerting on one level, but the approach was very straightforward and the steep approach made the round-out feel easy and gentle. You NEED to fly the glider all the way until the glider comes to a complete stop (if you have ever flown a tailwheel plane, this is SOP).

If you can get the plane for a good price (and perhaps split the plane with someone else), I think that you will be very happy.

[Roy B.]

Tim:
I owned a "C" model (fixed gear) in a syndicate for many years. I went to it with many hundreds of prior hours hours in other flapped gliders so it was hardly my first ship. But this is what I found:

Pros:
It's the best performing glider that can be reasonably left outside in the weather.

Once you learn how to do it (get instruction from a CFI who knows you and who has flown 80 or 90 degree flap gliders) it is great for off field landings.

Parts are easily available and repairs don't require an experienced composite shop

They don't depreciate much and you can usually sell it for what you paid for it.

Negatives:

The ones that have hinged canopies have seriously restricted maximum pilot weight (all that hardware up in the nose) and there is no good way to add tail weight to fix that. The ones with removable canopies are a PITA

Either type canopy can be difficult to seal well because the rear junctions are complex.

I thought roll rate response ( at least on mine) was on the weak side - the ailerons are tiny and have limited deflection (and that's coming from a high time open class pilot who is used to stodgy roll)

Be aware that they will spin aggressively if provoked and that the best thermaling flap settings are not necessarily as set up by the factory.

Good luck

ROY

[[email protected]]

I summarize the 1-35 flaps thusly: it is neither necessary nor abnormal to use full flap in a typical land-at-home situation. Sure nice to have those flaps and skid landing off-airport (7x for me).


Except in extraordinary gusty conditions &c., I settled into flying downwind at 700' and selecting full flap on base in the C model after gaining about 50 of my 300+ hours in type. Mainly because I am lazy and there's no detent other than full.

Downwind that low put me out of sight behind trees, though, and in spite of my having a radio, a student wing-runner launched an opposite-direction tow as I was turning base. Whatever.