Ventus 2c vs. 2cx

[noel.wade]

All -

I've spent a long time studying Schleicher aircraft; not as much
looking at S-H ships. Can anyone explain how much of a performance
difference there is between a V2c and a V2cx? I understand the
fuselage changed between the two; any major improvements or
innovations, or was the D2 fuselage just slightly better and easier to
manufacture? Any aerodynamic differences (other than the fuse) between
the 2c and the 2cx? Any comments on whether an "older" 2c is
competitive with an ASW-27 or other current 15m ships?

Thanks a bunch,

--Noel

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:39:34 PM UTC-4, noel.wade wrote:
> All - I've spent a long time studying Schleicher aircraft; not as much looking at S-H ships. Can anyone explain how much of a performance difference there is between a V2c and a V2cx? I understand the fuselage changed between the two; any major improvements or innovations, or was the D2 fuselage just slightly better and easier to manufacture? Any aerodynamic differences (other than the fuse) between the 2c and the 2cx? Any comments on whether an "older" 2c is competitive with an ASW-27 or other current 15m ships? Thanks a bunch, --Noel

Different horizontal tail with new thinner airfoil. CX is considered to be better.
UH

[Craig Funston[_2_]]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 5:39:34 PM UTC-7, noel.wade wrote:
> All -
>
>
>
> I've spent a long time studying Schleicher aircraft; not as much
>
> looking at S-H ships. Can anyone explain how much of a performance
>
> difference there is between a V2c and a V2cx? I understand the
>
> fuselage changed between the two; any major improvements or
>
> innovations, or was the D2 fuselage just slightly better and easier to
>
> manufacture? Any aerodynamic differences (other than the fuse) between
>
> the 2c and the 2cx? Any comments on whether an "older" 2c is
>
> competitive with an ASW-27 or other current 15m ships?
>
>
>
> Thanks a bunch,
>
>
>
> --Noel

Noel,

Duckhawk!

Dream big, :-)
Craig

[5 ugly]

The entire tail, horizontal and vertical are thinner along with a different airfoil for the wing extensions.

[StaPo]

- completely different outside wing panels with Maughmer winglets on 2Cx
- MTOW 600 kg on 2Cx
btw: some people say that performance difference between 2Cx and 2C is bigger than difference between 2C and 1C/17.6, when all these ships loaded to their respective MTOWs...

[Bob Kuykendall]

Noel,

Be sure and find one with NDH. Nobody is really sure what NDH is, but
everyone knows how important it is.

http://www.soaravenal.com/doon6.htm

I might have one of those tails lying around. Or one like it. They're
all about the same, right?

Thanks, Bob K.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 9:56:36 PM UTC-5, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> Noel,
>
>
>
> Be sure and find one with NDH. Nobody is really sure what NDH is, but
>
> everyone knows how important it is.
>
>
>
> http://www.soaravenal.com/doon6.htm
>
>
>
> I might have one of those tails lying around. Or one like it. They're
>
> all about the same, right?
>
>
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

thank god I wasn't the only one that thought of the Lingus 2CX.

the trick to finding one with No Damage History is to get one with No History!

[Muttley]

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:39:34 AM UTC+2, noel.wade wrote:
> All -
>
>
>
> I've spent a long time studying Schleicher aircraft; not as much
>
> looking at S-H ships. Can anyone explain how much of a performance
>
> difference there is between a V2c and a V2cx? I understand the
>
> fuselage changed between the two; any major improvements or
>
> innovations, or was the D2 fuselage just slightly better and easier to
>
> manufacture? Any aerodynamic differences (other than the fuse) between
>
> the 2c and the 2cx? Any comments on whether an "older" 2c is
>
> competitive with an ASW-27 or other current 15m ships?
>
>
>
> Thanks a bunch,
>
>
> > --Noel

Noel
the Ventus 2 was conceived as an 18metre ship and I think it was not comparable in performance to an ASW 27 in 15metre

However if you are looking just for a ship for pleasure flying the Ventus 2C in 18metre is quite nice as the wings are not as stiff as the Ventus 2cx and also the change to the wings and elevator as mentioned before makes the Ventus 2cx more competitive in 15 and 18 metre and also a bit sharper in handling.

Mottley

[Peter F[_2_]]

The results at World Championships level don't suggest that the V2 lacks
performance.

The actual difference between any of the top performing gliders in a given
comp class...
Std (D2/LS8),
15M (ASW27/ ASW29 / V2a / V2ax),
18m (V2c / V2cx / ASW29 / JS1)
...is tiny.
More than made up for by decisions made by the pilot.

(Apologies to owners of ships from other manufacturers!)

Open class may be a different matter, too many new designs to provide any
history of results.

PF

At 09:16 20 June 2013, Muttley wrote:

>
>Noel
>the Ventus 2 was conceived as an 18metre ship and I think it was not
>compar=
>able in performance to an ASW 27 in 15metre
>

[Sean Franke]

Noel,

I have a couple hundred hours in a 2c. It's a nice glider and competitive with the 27.

There is negligible performance difference in 15 meter. Few pilots can differentiate the performance in 18 meter between 2c and 2cx.

Are you evaluating for a purchase? If so focus on price, instruments, equipment, total time and condition.

Sean Franke

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 5:39:34 PM UTC-7, noel.wade wrote:
> All -
>
>
>
> I've spent a long time studying Schleicher aircraft; not as much
>
> looking at S-H ships. Can anyone explain how much of a performance
>
> difference there is between a V2c and a V2cx? I understand the
>
> fuselage changed between the two; any major improvements or
>
> innovations, or was the D2 fuselage just slightly better and easier to
>
> manufacture? Any aerodynamic differences (other than the fuse) between
>
> the 2c and the 2cx? Any comments on whether an "older" 2c is
>
> competitive with an ASW-27 or other current 15m ships?
>
>
>
> Thanks a bunch,
>
>
>
> --Noel

[K]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 6:39:34 PM UTC-6, noel.wade wrote:
> All -
>
>
>
> I've spent a long time studying Schleicher aircraft; not as much
>
> looking at S-H ships. Can anyone explain how much of a performance
>
> difference there is between a V2c and a V2cx? I understand the
>
> fuselage changed between the two; any major improvements or
>
> innovations, or was the D2 fuselage just slightly better and easier to
>
> manufacture? Any aerodynamic differences (other than the fuse) between
>
> the 2c and the 2cx? Any comments on whether an "older" 2c is
>
> competitive with an ASW-27 or other current 15m ships?
>
>
>
> Thanks a bunch,
>
>
>
> --Noel

Noel,
I spent a fair amount of time studying the Ventus and almost bought one before a clean used 27 popped up. Its like everyone here said; new tail, better handling and the outer wings were tuned up. Also, the CX has the safety cockpit (Worth it in my book). The factory was very helpful with answering questions. I may still have the drag polar they sent me (If you PM I can look). Heinz at M&H is very helpful.
Good Luck

[Richard Walters]

Noel

The V2 and V2CX have identical fuselages and crash protection.
They are different from the V1a,b,c with a 5" wheel, larger cockpit
and better side to side vision for tall pilots. V2CX has new fin,
rudder and stab, as well as 18m tips with new planform, less
dihedral, new airfoil, flaperons that extend to the tip, and winglets.
MTOW is 600kg vs the 525KG of the V2. Handling is superb in
either and much better than the V1a,b,c. Noticeable high speed
performance advantage with the 2CX over the 2C.

Richard Walters

[Richard Walters]

Noel

The V2 and V2CX have identical fuselages and crash protection.
They are different from the V1a,b,c with a 5" wheel, larger cockpit
and better side to side vision for tall pilots. V2CX has new fin,
rudder and stab, as well as 18m tips with new planform, less
dihedral, new airfoil, flaperons that extend to the tip, and winglets.
MTOW is 600kg vs the 525KG of the V2. Handling is superb in
either and much better than the V1a,b,c. Noticeable high speed
performance advantage with the 2CX over the 2C.

Richard Walters

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 9:00:22 PM UTC-4, Craig Funston wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 5:39:34 PM UTC-7, noel.wade wrote:
>
> > All -
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I've spent a long time studying Schleicher aircraft; not as much
>
> >
>
> > looking at S-H ships. Can anyone explain how much of a performance
>
> >
>
> > difference there is between a V2c and a V2cx? I understand the
>
> >
>
> > fuselage changed between the two; any major improvements or
>
> >
>
> > innovations, or was the D2 fuselage just slightly better and easier to
>
> >
>
> > manufacture? Any aerodynamic differences (other than the fuse) between
>
> >
>
> > the 2c and the 2cx? Any comments on whether an "older" 2c is
>
> >
>
> > competitive with an ASW-27 or other current 15m ships?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Thanks a bunch,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --Noel
>
>
>
> Noel,
>
>
>
> Duckhawk!
>
>
>
> Dream big, :-)
>
> Craig

two totally different missions.

[BruceGreeff]

As I understand it - the 2cX aerodynamic changes were focussed on
handling and particularly low speed controllability and harmony.
Also had the effect of widening the drag bucket - so the polar is a
little flatter in theory - Doubt there is much in it on "best L/D".



On 2013/06/20 2:54 PM, Sean Franke wrote:
> Noel,
>
> I have a couple hundred hours in a 2c. It's a nice glider and competitive with the 27.
>
> There is negligible performance difference in 15 meter. Few pilots can differentiate the performance in 18 meter between 2c and 2cx.
>
> Are you evaluating for a purchase? If so focus on price, instruments, equipment, total time and condition.
>
> Sean Franke
>
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 5:39:34 PM UTC-7, noel.wade wrote:
>> All -
>>
>>
>>
>> I've spent a long time studying Schleicher aircraft; not as much
>>
>> looking at S-H ships. Can anyone explain how much of a performance
>>
>> difference there is between a V2c and a V2cx? I understand the
>>
>> fuselage changed between the two; any major improvements or
>>
>> innovations, or was the D2 fuselage just slightly better and easier to
>>
>> manufacture? Any aerodynamic differences (other than the fuse) between
>>
>> the 2c and the 2cx? Any comments on whether an "older" 2c is
>>
>> competitive with an ASW-27 or other current 15m ships?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks a bunch,
>>
>>
>>
>> --Noel

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

[noel.wade]

Thanks for the info, all!

PF - Thanks, yes. I am fully aware that the performance differences
are very small and pilot decisions make a big impact. :-) I did auto-
racing before flying, and the same holds true in that arena (I got the
biggest kick out of beating Mustangs and Porsches with my cheap little
Mazda Miata on twisty racetracks). But I'm looking to the future with
this purchase. Whatever I buy I will end up owning for 15-25 years,
and I need to be able to "grow into it". I did reasonably well at my
first Nats and I don't think a better glider would have changed the
standings; but it might be the difference-maker in 3-7 years, if I
keep working to improve my skills.

Bruce - The last 15+ years of sailplane development have shown that
for XC and racing, "max L/D" (at a single - usually slow - speed) is
not nearly as important as holding a "good" L/D into the higher speed-
ranges (70-85kts as a sweet-spot? Based on my experience, performance
differences at 95+ knots don't seem to be a huge factor as not a whole
lot of time is spent cruising up at those speeds - though I'd be happy
to hear that confirmed from the veterans, given my own limited contest
experience).

Sean - I sincerely appreciate the tips. The calculation I have to make
is whether the additional cost of an old V2c is "worth it" compared to
a newer '27. Hours on the airframe might not be hugely different
between the ships I buy; but the V2c is likely to have been
manufactured 5-12 years before a '27. Even when a ship ain't flying,
the age does affect it so its something to consider. A '27 is likely
to be cheaper, but (of course) only has 15m tips. The V2c is older and
likely more-expensive, but the 18m tips are tempting...

Like all aircraft purchases, it all comes back to the "mission". I
want to race at a national level; but due to work commitments I'm
limited to races in the western US. That means buying a ship which can
be reasonably competitive in 2 or 3 classes, so I can hit 1 Nats per
year. The '27 was my main target because its a top-dog in 15m class,
OK in Sports, and *might* be able to hold its own in 18m class at
strong sites where high wing-loading offsets the reduced wingspan. The
V2c looks like its not as strong in 15m class, but perhaps better in
18m than the '27? Hard to know if that tradeoff is worth it...

Thanks again,

--Noel

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 6:39:34 PM UTC-6, noel.wade wrote:
> All -
>
>
>
> I've spent a long time studying Schleicher aircraft; not as much
>
> looking at S-H ships. Can anyone explain how much of a performance
>
> difference there is between a V2c and a V2cx? I understand the
>
> fuselage changed between the two; any major improvements or
>
> innovations, or was the D2 fuselage just slightly better and easier to
>
> manufacture? Any aerodynamic differences (other than the fuse) between
>
> the 2c and the 2cx? Any comments on whether an "older" 2c is
>
> competitive with an ASW-27 or other current 15m ships?
>
>
>
> Thanks a bunch,
>
>
>
> --Noel

Top dawgs don't use old dogs to sailplane race with........yet some old dawgs use top dogs just because they can!

The definition of DAWG is "Close Friend". Which means to me, as during a National FAI event, are the points separating the sportsman on the very top of the score sheet.

Heed the advice of Walters, he knows the V2C extremely well. 5U is best at knowing ALL about the minute differences between the ships.

Me.......just think of me as an old dawg poet......

#711.

[Al McNamara]

Noel

From a European perspective, I think there was a time a few years ago when
the 27 could compete in an 18m field (as could an LS8 with 18m tips). The
ASG29, JS1 and Ventus 2cxa changed this. I'm surprised there is no real
mention of these 3 gliders in this thread.

In my opinion, the 27 is still reasonably competative in the 15m class (2
in top 5 in the Europeans at the moment) and so is the Ventus 2a (pre 2ax)
- the slightly older 15m gliders still do very well in their class.
However, I think the reality is that at national/international level the
Ventus 2c is on a different level to the 29, JS1 and cxa in 18m, and the
wing loading of the 2c in 15m means it struggles against the pure 15m
designs (27, V2a(x)).

Don't get me wong, I think the V2c is a fantastic XC glider, and offers
great flexibility to get experience in different classes. It costs less,
and most of the time will do everything that most people want or need.
However, if you're looking for something to compete in at national level a
few years down the line, it's probably not the right choice. A 29 or V2
cxa with 15m & 18m tips is probably the thing if you're looking for 15/18m
flexibility, or a JS1 if you're looking to compete in 18m/open class.

Of course money is always a factor!

Al

ps I have loads of time in V2c in both 15m and 18m and in the 27 having
flown 15m Nationals in both (to be fair not very well!) and currently have
a share in a V2 cxa. I've never flown a 29 or JS1.

[[email protected]]

Buy the right glider the first time. That is how you are going to save money in a long run.

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 5:13:51 PM UTC-4, Al McNamara wrote:
> Noel
>
>
>
> From a European perspective, I think there was a time a few years ago when
>
> the 27 could compete in an 18m field (as could an LS8 with 18m tips). The
>
> ASG29, JS1 and Ventus 2cxa changed this. I'm surprised there is no real
>
> mention of these 3 gliders in this thread.
>
>
>
> In my opinion, the 27 is still reasonably competative in the 15m class (2
>
> in top 5 in the Europeans at the moment) and so is the Ventus 2a (pre 2ax)
>
> - the slightly older 15m gliders still do very well in their class.
>
> However, I think the reality is that at national/international level the
>
> Ventus 2c is on a different level to the 29, JS1 and cxa in 18m, and the
>
> wing loading of the 2c in 15m means it struggles against the pure 15m
>
> designs (27, V2a(x)).
>
>
>
> Don't get me wong, I think the V2c is a fantastic XC glider, and offers
>
> great flexibility to get experience in different classes. It costs less,
>
> and most of the time will do everything that most people want or need.
>
> However, if you're looking for something to compete in at national level a
>
> few years down the line, it's probably not the right choice. A 29 or V2
>
> cxa with 15m & 18m tips is probably the thing if you're looking for 15/18m
>
> flexibility, or a JS1 if you're looking to compete in 18m/open class.
>
>
>
> Of course money is always a factor!
>
>
>
> Al
>
>
>
> ps I have loads of time in V2c in both 15m and 18m and in the 27 having
>
> flown 15m Nationals in both (to be fair not very well!) and currently have
>
> a share in a V2 cxa. I've never flown a 29 or JS1.

[Ventus2NZ]

> In my opinion, the 27 is still reasonably competitive in the 15m class (2
> in top 5 in the Europeans at the moment) and so is the Ventus 2a (pre 2ax)
> - the slightly older 15m gliders still do very well in their class.
>
> However, I think the reality is that at national/international level the
> Ventus 2c is on a different level to the 29, JS1 and cxa in 18m, and the
> wing loading of the 2c in 15m means it struggles against the pure 15m
> designs (27, V2a(x)).

The wing loading of my Ventus 2cT in 15m configuration is the same as V2ax, V2bx. They all have a wing area of 9.67 m2 and a mauw of 525kg.

RY