ASG-29E vs. JS-1Jet Sustainer

[Gerry Simpson]

I am very interested in purchasing one or the other and having difficulty weighing the merits each of because of no direct experience with either. I would like to have some advice concerning reliability, resale values, performance and build quality. Can I compare apples and apples with these two?

[Sean Fidler]

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 4:36:21 PM UTC-5, Gerry Simpson wrote:
> I am very interested in purchasing one or the other and having difficulty weighing the merits each of because of no direct experience with either. I would like to have some advice concerning reliability, resale values, performance and build quality. Can I compare apples and apples with these two?

I know of a JS-1 that had some kind of compressor stall and would not start in a contest last season. That gave me some pause. You might want to look into that. It is a new system. Call me again on that if you wish.

With the 29e, of course, you have to do the "dive" to start which means you have to be over a suitable field at 1500 ft. AGL min to do a truly safe start procedure.

As far as performance, I would say they are very, very equal. Of course the 29 is 18/15 and the JS-1 is 18/21. If I had to choose 2 classes I would probably choose 18/Open but of course you also have to pay a lot extra for that span (30k). Trailer is very tight as well with both 18 and 21 meter tips onboard.

Resale price has to be comparable (depreciation) for the 18m although the edge in ease of sale would likely go to the 29.

Definitely apples to apples. Just one is covered in caramel (jet and 21m)! You have to pay extra for the caramel of course.

Personally, I dont think you could go wrong with either. The cool factor is probably with the JS-1. The smart play might be the 29 if your worried about price and selling easily soon at a good price.

This is probably nothing new for you. Hopefully some others chime in and help you here. I wonder has anyone owned both gliders?

Dont forget about the HpH 18m jet either. This might be worth some thought too.

My 2 cents...

[Gerry Simpson]

New this year is a new starter system for the 29E. It now has an electric DC starter motor which I believe is mounted on the crankshaft, which negates the diving to start. I think it is a DC motor like the one on the LAK FES only smaller. I have considered the Hph, however value retention and quick resale is a concern.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 1:36:21 PM UTC-8, Gerry Simpson wrote:
> I am very interested in purchasing one or the other and having difficulty weighing the merits each of because of no direct experience with either. I would like to have some advice concerning reliability, resale values, performance and build quality. Can I compare apples and apples with these two?

Something to think about with the jet engine is an uncontained engine failure (happens rarely in the airline world but it does happen and what kind of engine fire protection is available for a "Hot Start" or engine fire (another rare occurrence but does happen) So if there is an engine fire protection systems AND some kind of shield for the pilot if the engine suffered some kind of rpm exceedence then I would seriously consider the jet

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 4:36:21 PM UTC-5, Gerry Simpson wrote:
> I am very interested in purchasing one or the other and having difficulty weighing the merits each of because of no direct experience with either. I would like to have some advice concerning reliability, resale values, performance and build quality. Can I compare apples and apples with these two?

If you want to fly an ASG29E on the east coast it will do fine but please don't think the sustainer will be useful when you go out west. You will not be able to climb when the density altitude is 9,500 feet (last year at ELY).. As long as you are aware of limitations you will be happy. I chose ASH as I wanted to climb over mountains. The ASG-29 is a wonderful glider you will not regret.

Check which glider will give you higher climb rate. I would go with the one that climbs better. Just picture a situation where you find yourself low over a field and you start your engine. The direction home is over some questionable terrain so if you are at 1500 AGL you will not just go home. You need to climb at least as high as necessary to give you a good glide to next landing spot in case the engine fails. You always need to be prepared for the worst. So a glider that climbs faster will make your life easier. Of course if you are over flat lands with farming fields you will be in a better situation as you can go home lower.

Enjoy whatever you choose.

[[email protected]]

Gerry, were did you get this information? Is there somewhere we can read about that? I didn't see anything on the AS website or in the technical notes.

[Sean Fidler]

If the new 29e has an electric start that would be worth a few extra points.. Have not heard of that either. You clearly are thinking new now?

Great points about climb limitations out west. I have heard that about many sustainers out west. Obviously, the jet would have a tremendous advantage there.

The Hph jet is pretty darn impressive glider and is far also less expensive than the JS1. Their jet has been around for much longer. Hph doesn't get a fair share of interest in the US (worse than the JS-1). The performance and quality is outstanding from what have read.

The Lak17b FES is also very, very impressive. Not sure how FES performs out west but it is likely far better than a rotax sustainer. Nothing on the market beats FES in price/performance and practicality. Well, perhaps the jet does if you can afford it and if your looking to fly out west often.

If only the Handicap committee would give FES a reasonably fair handicap! Right now it actually rates HIGHER than pure (LOL) due to higher gross weight. If you don't care primarily about contest results, the 17b FES is the glider I would buy. To be clear I say that referring to FES drag impact and handicap issues, not pure glider performance. You would save some dough it has 21 meter wings as well. Such a bummer that they have never really bothered to prove the performance of their designs. A few very competitive pilots have gliders coming. That will be interesting to watch.

I'm going to place a wager. Gerry is going to order a JS-1! Anyone have $20 bucks they want to lose?

:-)

[John Galloway[_1_]]

At 02:36 28 January 2015, wrote:
>
>Something to think about with the jet engine is an uncontained
engine
>failu=
>re (happens rarely in the airline world but it does happen and what
kind
>of=
> engine fire protection is available for a "Hot Start" or engine fire
>(anot=
>her rare occurrence but does happen) So if there is an engine fire
>protect=
>ion systems AND some kind of shield for the pilot if the engine
suffered
>so=
>me kind of rpm exceedence then I would seriously consider the jet
>

There is an EASA document titled "Special Condition on Small Jet
engine for Sailplane Applicable to Sailplanes Category" which gives
the design and certification criteria for turbines for gliders and which
discusses rotor containment. All the glider turbines have to comply
to be certified and I know that M&D who make the JS1 jet had to
put their engine through 1500 start and power cycles with a cracked
blade as part of the certification tests. That issue doesn't worry me
at all.

http://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/certification-docs-crd-
Special-Condition-small-jet-engine-for-sailplane-final.pdf

As for the fire risk, there isn't a lot of point in having a fire wall in
the JS1 engine bay when the turbine can only be run when it is fully
extended with the engine bay doors shut.

There is comprehensive emergency procedure advice in the jet
manual including about engine fires - how to recognise them and
how to manage them. The bottom line is close the fuel valve and
wait until the engine stops, then switch the engine off and wait until
it cools down.

As a European owner I am far more concerned about when the
turbine is going to get EASA certification so that I can get it installed
rather than hazards after it is installed.

John Galloway

[[email protected]]

I have no experience with the new jet powered gliders other than what I have seen during flight demonstrations at Oshkosh, Wisconsin.

The noise was nothing short of deafening!

My immediate thought was we could not allow them at our gliderport as the neighbors would justifiably raise hell.

Tom Knauff

[John Galloway[_1_]]

At 13:29 28 January 2015, wrote:
>I have no experience with the new jet powered gliders other than
what I
>have seen during flight demonstrations at Oshkosh, Wisconsin.
>
>The noise was nothing short of deafening!
>
>My immediate thought was we could not allow them at our gliderport
as the
>neighbors would justifiably raise hell.
>
>Tom Knauff


Presumably sustainer jets would be used away from the airfield.

[Renny[_2_]]

As Sean mentioned the FES on the LAK-17b is another option and it truly is an outstanding sustainer. There have been no issues using it out west over the past 3 years. The ship is based at Moriarty (Elevation: 6,200 feet) and it has performed as advertised. In addition to the LAK-17b and the Silent 2 Electro, the FES is now available on the Ventus 2cxa. Thanks - Renny



On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 12:13:46 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> If the new 29e has an electric start that would be worth a few extra points. Have not heard of that either. You clearly are thinking new now?
>
> Great points about climb limitations out west. I have heard that about many sustainers out west. Obviously, the jet would have a tremendous advantage there.
>
> The Hph jet is pretty darn impressive glider and is far also less expensive than the JS1. Their jet has been around for much longer. Hph doesn't get a fair share of interest in the US (worse than the JS-1). The performance and quality is outstanding from what have read.
>
> The Lak17b FES is also very, very impressive. Not sure how FES performs out west but it is likely far better than a rotax sustainer. Nothing on the market beats FES in price/performance and practicality. Well, perhaps the jet does if you can afford it and if your looking to fly out west often.
>
> If only the Handicap committee would give FES a reasonably fair handicap! Right now it actually rates HIGHER than pure (LOL) due to higher gross weight. If you don't care primarily about contest results, the 17b FES is the glider I would buy. To be clear I say that referring to FES drag impact and handicap issues, not pure glider performance. You would save some dough it has 21 meter wings as well. Such a bummer that they have never really bothered to prove the performance of their designs. A few very competitive pilots have gliders coming. That will be interesting to watch.
>
> I'm going to place a wager. Gerry is going to order a JS-1! Anyone have $20 bucks they want to lose?
>
> :-)

[Alexander Georgas[_2_]]

Well, the important distinction with the jet is that even in the rare
case that it does not start, you are still flying a high-performance
sailplane. Can't say the same about the piston engine.


On 28/01/2015 00:30, Sean Fidler wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 4:36:21 PM UTC-5, Gerry Simpson wrote:
>> I am very interested in purchasing one or the other and having difficulty weighing the merits each of because of no direct experience with either. I would like to have some advice concerning reliability, resale values, performance and build quality. Can I compare apples and apples with these two?
>
> I know of a JS-1 that had some kind of compressor stall and would not start in a contest last season. That gave me some pause. You might want to look into that. It is a new system. Call me again on that if you wish.
>
> With the 29e, of course, you have to do the "dive" to start which means you have to be over a suitable field at 1500 ft. AGL min to do a truly safe start procedure.
>
> As far as performance, I would say they are very, very equal. Of course the 29 is 18/15 and the JS-1 is 18/21. If I had to choose 2 classes I would probably choose 18/Open but of course you also have to pay a lot extra for that span (30k). Trailer is very tight as well with both 18 and 21 meter tips onboard.
>
> Resale price has to be comparable (depreciation) for the 18m although the edge in ease of sale would likely go to the 29.
>
> Definitely apples to apples. Just one is covered in caramel (jet and 21m)! You have to pay extra for the caramel of course.
>
> Personally, I dont think you could go wrong with either. The cool factor is probably with the JS-1. The smart play might be the 29 if your worried about price and selling easily soon at a good price.
>
> This is probably nothing new for you. Hopefully some others chime in and help you here. I wonder has anyone owned both gliders?
>
> Dont forget about the HpH 18m jet either. This might be worth some thought too.
>
> My 2 cents...
>

[Gliding Guru]

Don't get me wrong - The ASG 29 is a great glider but its basically already
a 20 year old design. It's really just a 27 with some extra long tips.

I have also heard of many complaints about the engine, although the
electric start is at least some attempt to make it better when you really
need it. And as already pointed out, if you are flying out west, the rate
of climb will be very slow.

Schleichers and Schempps go back a long that way but you kind of have to
feel that they are resting on their laurels. The JS brothers eat, breathe
and sleep their JS dream and apart from the 50 ideas they already have to
make the glider better they are coming up with more each day.

The jet system is also not 100 percent yet but I think that with the
partnership at M & D and with the ever greater numbers flying that the
problems will be ironed out. - With the jet it is no problem to climb, even
heavy and at high altitude. And best of all you can pop the jet for a few
extra beat ups at the end of the day!

Glider wise the new 18m evo tips bring the performance up to that of at
least the ASG. The JS1 may have a little better feel in the climb though
and even when its heavy you can pull just a little bit in those tight
thermals and get away with it.

A well flown JS 1c 21m at Ely can rewrite the records books. As proven in
the last worlds if thermal strengths are better than 2 knots there is no
better glider (except for maybe Concordia)! So for the little extra it's a
bargin






At 21:36 27 January 2015, Gerry Simpson wrote:
>I am very interested in purchasing one or the other and having difficulty
>w=
>eighing the merits each of because of no direct experience with either. I
>w=
>ould like to have some advice concerning reliability, resale values,
>perfor=
>mance and build quality. Can I compare apples and apples with these two?
>

[Gliding Guru]

Don't get me wrong - The ASG 29 is a great glider but its basically already
a 20 year old design. It's really just a 27 with some extra long tips.

I have also heard of many complaints about the engine, although the
electric start is at least some attempt to make it better when you really
need it. And as already pointed out, if you are flying out west, the rate
of climb will be very slow.

Schleichers and Schempps go back a long that way but you kind of have to
feel that they are resting on their laurels. The JS brothers eat, breathe
and sleep their JS dream and apart from the 50 ideas they already have to
make the glider better they are coming up with more each day.

The jet system is also not 100 percent yet but I think that with the
partnership at M & D and with the ever greater numbers flying that the
problems will be ironed out. - With the jet it is no problem to climb, even
heavy and at high altitude. And best of all you can pop the jet for a few
extra beat ups at the end of the day!

Glider wise the new 18m evo tips bring the performance up to that of at
least the ASG. The JS1 may have a little better feel in the climb though
and even when its heavy you can pull just a little bit in those tight
thermals and get away with it.

A well flown JS 1c 21m at Ely can rewrite the records books. As proven in
the last worlds if thermal strengths are better than 2 knots there is no
better glider (except for maybe Concordia)! So for the little extra it's a
bargin






At 21:36 27 January 2015, Gerry Simpson wrote:
>I am very interested in purchasing one or the other and having difficulty
>w=
>eighing the merits each of because of no direct experience with either. I
>w=
>ould like to have some advice concerning reliability, resale values,
>perfor=
>mance and build quality. Can I compare apples and apples with these two?
>

[Gliding Guru]

Don't get me wrong - The ASG 29 is a great glider but its basically already
a 20 year old design. It's really just a 27 with some extra long tips.

I have also heard of many complaints about the engine, although the
electric start is at least some attempt to make it better when you really
need it. And as already pointed out, if you are flying out west, the rate
of climb will be very slow.

Schleichers and Schempps go back a long that way but you kind of have to
feel that they are resting on their laurels. The JS brothers eat, breathe
and sleep their JS dream and apart from the 50 ideas they already have to
make the glider better they are coming up with more each day.

The jet system is also not 100 percent yet but I think that with the
partnership at M & D and with the ever greater numbers flying that the
problems will be ironed out. - With the jet it is no problem to climb, even
heavy and at high altitude. And best of all you can pop the jet for a few
extra beat ups at the end of the day!

Glider wise the new 18m evo tips bring the performance up to that of at
least the ASG. The JS1 may have a little better feel in the climb though
and even when its heavy you can pull just a little bit in those tight
thermals and get away with it.

A well flown JS 1c 21m at Ely can rewrite the records books. As proven in
the last worlds if thermal strengths are better than 2 knots there is no
better glider (except for maybe Concordia)! So for the little extra it's a
bargin






At 21:36 27 January 2015, Gerry Simpson wrote:
>I am very interested in purchasing one or the other and having difficulty
>w=
>eighing the merits each of because of no direct experience with either. I
>w=
>ould like to have some advice concerning reliability, resale values,
>perfor=
>mance and build quality. Can I compare apples and apples with these two?
>

[JS]

Comments from 40 hours or so in JS1B and C, more in the 29, and even more in a 26E:
Both the gliders you mention are very nice to fly. Bold, caps and underline very.
A raised and stopped prop is a big spoiler. A raised and stopped jet is not.
The flap/aileron mixer has better glide path control and aileron control in landing flap setting than flaperons can give you.
You will be amazed by the handling and comfort of both of these machines. Flew JS1 before my own 29 was registered and thought I may have made a mistake, but now feel the 29 is what the 27 always wanted to be.
On the ASH26E newsgroup's tech website there is documentation of my ASH26E (now "DEE") fire extinguisher installation. I wish more people installed something like that, or manufacturers would give buyers that option.
Jim

[Ben Coleman]

On Thursday, 29 January 2015 09:01:42 UTC+10, JS wrote:
> Comments from 40 hours or so in JS1B and C, more in the 29, and even more in a 26E:
>

Jim, how do cockpit sizes compare bewteen the 26E, 29 and JS1? I am a wide body model and just about have to lube up to get in my LS6 - if I'm dreaming of a new ship I may as well dream about one that fits.

Thanks Ben

[JS]

Ben, the LS6A was always a favorite glider of mine, had one for 12 years. But after flying ASW27 the LS6 felt claustrophobic. A mod to the seat back somewhat fixed that. The JS1 is not quite as large a cockpit as the ASH26, even though from the outside the fuselages appear the same. But both JS1 and ASW27/28/29 fuselage should feel spacious after flying the 6. The LS6C seat back apparently stolen from LS8 makes that cockpit feel larger too.
If your shoes are wide, ASW27/28/29 rudder pedals may require you to narrow the soles of your shoes (I use a die grinder) to fit between the cable guides and the tabs on the inside of the pedals. I don't remember doing this in the 26 or JS1, but that may have been choice of footwear at the time.
With the 29 I fly middle seatback position at the bottom, I have raised the adjustment cross-tube 1 hole on 27 and 29 so the seat tilts further back. It's necessary to grind a bit out of the right side flange of the seat back to accommodate the Oxygen regulator if you do this. My pedals are not in full forward position. I'm 6'0" (1.83m) tall and about 173Lbs (78.5kg). As they say, your mileage may vary.
The JS1 seat back is not adjustable in flight. Nor are some of the 29s I've seen.
Regarding Oxygen, the JS1 uses a smaller O2 cylinder than anything else I've run into. There's a mod to put a second cylinder in the fuselage, but that will not work if you have the jet sustainer.
Forgot to mention in the previous post, the JS1 has a couple of W+B related items that are notable.
There is a second 5 liter tail tank which cannot be dumped in flight, so you can adjust the CG to your preference and it won't change when you dump the water ballast you've correctly loaded using the fantastic spreadsheet Jonker Sailplanes provides. This is particularly useful for a partnership or syndicate.
Jim


On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 5:59:28 PM UTC-8, Ben Coleman wrote:
> On Thursday, 29 January 2015 09:01:42 UTC+10, JS wrote:
> > Comments from 40 hours or so in JS1B and C, more in the 29, and even more in a 26E:
> >
>
> Jim, how do cockpit sizes compare bewteen the 26E, 29 and JS1? I am a wide body model and just about have to lube up to get in my LS6 - if I'm dreaming of a new ship I may as well dream about one that fits.
>
> Thanks Ben

[Ben Coleman]

Thanks for the info, very informative.

Regards Ben

On Thursday, 29 January 2015 14:19:14 UTC+10, JS wrote:
> Ben, the LS6A was always a favorite glider of mine, had one for 12 years. But after flying ASW27 the LS6 felt claustrophobic. A mod to the seat back somewhat fixed that. The JS1 is not quite as large a cockpit as the ASH26, even though from the outside the fuselages appear the same. But both JS1 and ASW27/28/29 fuselage should feel spacious after flying the 6. The LS6C seat back apparently stolen from LS8 makes that cockpit feel larger too.
> If your shoes are wide, ASW27/28/29 rudder pedals may require you to narrow the soles of your shoes (I use a die grinder) to fit between the cable guides and the tabs on the inside of the pedals. I don't remember doing this in the 26 or JS1, but that may have been choice of footwear at the time.
> With the 29 I fly middle seatback position at the bottom, I have raised the adjustment cross-tube 1 hole on 27 and 29 so the seat tilts further back.. It's necessary to grind a bit out of the right side flange of the seat back to accommodate the Oxygen regulator if you do this. My pedals are not in full forward position. I'm 6'0" (1.83m) tall and about 173Lbs (78.5kg). As they say, your mileage may vary.
> The JS1 seat back is not adjustable in flight. Nor are some of the 29s I've seen.
> Regarding Oxygen, the JS1 uses a smaller O2 cylinder than anything else I've run into. There's a mod to put a second cylinder in the fuselage, but that will not work if you have the jet sustainer.
> Forgot to mention in the previous post, the JS1 has a couple of W+B related items that are notable.
> There is a second 5 liter tail tank which cannot be dumped in flight, so you can adjust the CG to your preference and it won't change when you dump the water ballast you've correctly loaded using the fantastic spreadsheet Jonker Sailplanes provides. This is particularly useful for a partnership or syndicate.
> Jim
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 5:59:28 PM UTC-8, Ben Coleman wrote:
> > On Thursday, 29 January 2015 09:01:42 UTC+10, JS wrote:
> > > Comments from 40 hours or so in JS1B and C, more in the 29, and even more in a 26E:
> > >
> >
> > Jim, how do cockpit sizes compare bewteen the 26E, 29 and JS1? I am a wide body model and just about have to lube up to get in my LS6 - if I'm dreaming of a new ship I may as well dream about one that fits.
> >
> > Thanks Ben

[Jack Russell]

Of course you could also get your order in for the new Ventus 3?

[John Galloway[_1_]]

At 09:01 29 January 2015, Jack Russell wrote:
> Of course you could also get your order in for the new Ventus 3?
>
What is known about the Ventus 3? 15/18 or 18/21m? Anything
else?

John Galloway

[Sean Fidler]

Vaporware to slow down the sale of 29s and JS1s ;-)

Just like the Duckhawk and the JS1 prove, it will be a miracle if Shempp Hirth is able to produce a significant performance increase over the 29. Hype is a curious, highly predictable thing. The JS1 in 18 and the Duckhawk in 15 are very good gliders but they fell far short of being the game changers they were innitially advertised as being. The other gliders are still very much competitive. In fact the 29 has never lost the World Championship I believe. Now here comes the rumored V3 and many are touting it to be a "game changer!" Fact is that the 29 is "still" the standard by which all other 18m gliders are measured. It is going to be exceedingly difficult (and expensive) to significantly exceed it.

Furthermore, if a clearly superior 18 meter glider arrives, the 18m class (long strong due to perceived stability) will fracture a bit. Many will just stop competing in an uneven event rather than buy a new glider.

Once something new arrives which has a clear advantage, maybe I'll get in line :-). But I'm not that worried about it. It might be appealing just to start a "legacy" 18 meter class and exclude the V3. I like racing (well, OLCing) 29s and JS1s just fine.

[Jack Russell]

At 14:46 29 January 2015, Sean Fidler wrote:
>Vaporware to slow down the sale of 29s and JS1s ;-)
>
>Just like the Duckhawk and the JS1 prove, it will be a miracle if Shempp
>Hi=
>rth is able to produce a significant performance increase over the 29.
>Hyp=
>e is a curious, highly predictable thing. The JS1 in 18 and the Duckhawk
>i=
>n 15 are very good gliders but they fell far short of being the game
>change=
>rs they were innitially advertised as being. The other gliders are still
>v=
>ery much competitive. In fact the 29 has never lost the World
>Championship=
> I believe. Now here comes the rumored V3 and many are touting it to
be a
>=
>"game changer!" Fact is that the 29 is "still" the standard by which all
>o=
>ther 18m gliders are measured. It is going to be exceedingly difficult
>(an=
>d expensive) to significantly exceed it.
>
>Furthermore, if a clearly superior 18 meter glider arrives, the 18m class
>(=
>long strong due to perceived stability) will fracture a bit. Many will
>jus=
>t stop competing in an uneven event rather than buy a new glider.
>
>Once something new arrives which has a clear advantage, maybe I'll get
in
>l=
>ine :-). But I'm not that worried about it. It might be appealing just
>to=
> start a "legacy" 18 meter class and exclude the V3. I like racing (well,
>O=
>LCing) 29s and JS1s just fine.
>


I merely suggested it as an option. We shall see what the future will
bring.

[John Galloway[_1_]]

The V3 is vaporware? Well that saves me wondering about going to
Aero 2015 for the launch (as mentioned in the latest S&G).

As an aside, I think the Duckhawk (and the Diana) will be seen as
game changers in the long term by showing the potential for gliders
if they can be built by advanced construction methods allowing for
very low weights, high aspect ratios and wide wing loading ranges -
provided they manage to get EASA (and US equivalent) certified.

John Galloway



At 14:46 29 January 2015, Sean Fidler wrote:
>Vaporware to slow down the sale of 29s and JS1s ;-)
>
>Just like the Duckhawk and the JS1 prove, it will be a miracle if
Shempp
>Hi=
>rth is able to produce a significant performance increase over the
29.
>Hyp=
>e is a curious, highly predictable thing. The JS1 in 18 and the
Duckhawk
>i=
>n 15 are very good gliders but they fell far short of being the game
>change=
>rs they were innitially advertised as being. The other gliders are
still
>v=
>ery much competitive. In fact the 29 has never lost the World
>Championship=
> I believe. Now here comes the rumored V3 and many are touting
it to be a
>=
>"game changer!" Fact is that the 29 is "still" the standard by
which all
>o=
>ther 18m gliders are measured. It is going to be exceedingly
difficult
>(an=
>d expensive) to significantly exceed it.
>
>Furthermore, if a clearly superior 18 meter glider arrives, the 18m
class
>(=
>long strong due to perceived stability) will fracture a bit. Many will
>jus=
>t stop competing in an uneven event rather than buy a new glider.
>
>Once something new arrives which has a clear advantage, maybe
I'll get in
>l=
>ine :-). But I'm not that worried about it. It might be appealing
just
>to=
> start a "legacy" 18 meter class and exclude the V3. I like racing
(well,
>O=
>LCing) 29s and JS1s just fine.
>

[Sean Fidler]

Its Vaporware until it wins a few worlds. And Hype!

[Sean Fidler]

I agree PrePreg is the what is needed.

[Tom Knauff]

Some pilots will not be able to resist doing beat-ups / flyby's /restarts/ self launch/ or whatever, but unless the remarkable noise issue can be solved, the airport / gliderport neighbors will raise hell, and either close the gliderport, or cause regulations to ban their use.

Anyone with any interest, better investigate the noise issue before purchasing.

Tom Knauff

[[email protected]]

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 7:36:28 PM UTC, Tom Knauff wrote:
> Some pilots will not be able to resist doing beat-ups / flyby's /restarts/ self launch/ or whatever, but unless the remarkable noise issue can be solved, the airport / gliderport neighbors will raise hell, and either close the gliderport, or cause regulations to ban their use.
>
> Anyone with any interest, better investigate the noise issue before purchasing.
>
> Tom Knauff

Jets are very noisy, albeit directionally so in flight, there's not much left to investigate about that. It's more a question pilots and airfields reaching an understanding about their use. Surely an airfield management or gliding club chief instructor can ban jet glider self launches (which would be outwith the glider's TC any), unauthorised powered low passes and/or use within a specified distance from the airfield? That is what I am planning to self-impose if and when I get my turbine installed. It would be a sorry state of affairs if an airfield couldn't keep that level of discipline.

John Galloway (UK)

[[email protected]]

I remember a post some time back that began with the proclamation "since the Ventus 2 is no longer competitive" then shortly thereafter at the USA 18 meter Nations everyone got their butt kicked by two Ventus 2s....Sorry, I couldn't resist ;-)

[Sean Fidler]

Two words: Doug Jacobs
Two more: Rick Walters
They would probably have been 1-2 if their wings were clipped.
Doug is Doug and Rick is extroidinarily good as well as a master of Minden wave. It was a pleasure to watch.
The Discus 2 is clearly a great glider. I'm not sure why it does not seem to be quite equal (or as popular) at the World level. And here comes the V3!

[Ian[_2_]]

On 30/01/2015 23:21, wrote:

> Jets are very noisy, albeit directionally so in flight, there's not
> much left to investigate about that. It's more a question pilots and
> airfields reaching an understanding about their use. Surely an
> airfield management or gliding club chief instructor can ban jet
> glider self launches (which would be outwith the glider's TC any),
> unauthorised powered low passes and/or use within a specified
> distance from the airfield? That is what I am planning to
> self-impose if and when I get my turbine installed. It would be a
> sorry state of affairs if an airfield couldn't keep that level of
> discipline.

There were a few Jet JS1's a the SA Grand Prix Qualifier. Some of these
got fired up a few times when I was around the airfield. There were some
fly passes, run ups before launch and once, after finish, when 6 or 7
gliders were looking for place to land from 50m finish altitude at the
same time.

Yes, there are noisy, but not that noisy. My impression is that they
were less intrusive or annoying than the local flight school's Cessna
152. The jet noise was more of a novelty than a discomfort. I did not
notice anybody cringing with their fingers in their ears.

One or two jet pilots did ground run ups before launch. I suspect they
were just being cautious rather than this being a required procedure.
But if you have a "zero jet noise on the airfield" policy, you may be
constrained from doing a pre-launch run-up.


Ian

[Kevin Neave[_2_]]

All but 1 (2006) of the WGC Standard Class have been won by the D2.

Not sure what you mean by "it does not seem to be quite equal at the World
level"

It's not so popular here in the UK because of its perceived inability to
climb. In stronger conditions it seems to go OK.

KN

At 05:56 01 February 2015, Sean Fidler wrote:
>The Discus 2 is clearly a great glider. I'm not sure why it does not
seem
>to be quite equal (or as popular) at the World level.

[Jack Russell]

At 07:16 01 February 2015, Ian wrote:
>On 30/01/2015 23:21, wrote:
>
>> Jets are very noisy, albeit directionally so in flight, there's not
>> much left to investigate about that. It's more a question pilots and
>> airfields reaching an understanding about their use. Surely an
>> airfield management or gliding club chief instructor can ban jet
>> glider self launches (which would be outwith the glider's TC any),
>> unauthorised powered low passes and/or use within a specified
>> distance from the airfield? That is what I am planning to
>> self-impose if and when I get my turbine installed. It would be a
>> sorry state of affairs if an airfield couldn't keep that level of
>> discipline.
>
>There were a few Jet JS1's a the SA Grand Prix Qualifier. Some of these
>got fired up a few times when I was around the airfield. There were
some
>fly passes, run ups before launch and once, after finish, when 6 or 7
>gliders were looking for place to land from 50m finish altitude at the
>same time.
>
>Yes, there are noisy, but not that noisy. My impression is that they
>were less intrusive or annoying than the local flight school's Cessna
>152. The jet noise was more of a novelty than a discomfort. I did not
>notice anybody cringing with their fingers in their ears.
>
>One or two jet pilots did ground run ups before launch. I suspect they
>were just being cautious rather than this being a required procedure.
>But if you have a "zero jet noise on the airfield" policy, you may be
>constrained from doing a pre-launch run-up.
>
>
>Ian


Doesn't seem to be a problem in the more densely populated UK which
now has quite a number of HpH Shark jets and probably more NIMBY's
per head of population than the USA. Tom's being a bit of a 'prophet of
doom' I think.

[Sean Fidler]

I'm just looking at the top 3 in the 18 meter class for the last 4-5 Worlds when I say the Ventus 2 seems to not be quite equal to the 29 and JS1. I agree that in the reality that I have witnessed in the US (best 18m US pilot DJ flies a V2) is that the V2 is well within the "margin of pilot/performance error." But at the World level, the 29 seems to be the clearly dominant 18m machine with the JS1 right on its heels and the V2 in trail. Perhaps that is just a function of market share. The JS1 seems to be selling well along with the 29. I cannot remember the last time I heard of a new V2 being purchased.

If I said the D2 earlier that was an error. In Standard class the D2 is clearly ultra competitive. Again I am talking about the 18 meter flapped.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

I know this post is 6 months old, but the ASG-29 is not an ASW-27 with long tips. It has changes to the airfoil, the wing fuselage junction, rudder and mixer. Sure it is based on the ASW-27 but it is a different glider, even in 15 meter configuration it has a different wing area than a 27.

In no way does Schleicher rest on their laurels, which why they have a history of winners in 15 meter, 18 meter and open. The new turbo ASG-29Es,, is the first with a starter. While Jonkers and Lange are and were a welcome addition in technology and competition both the Schleicher and Schempp factory continue to make great gliders that push the limits of production/design/ while still being a viable business.

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 11:00:06 AM UTC-8, Gliding Guru wrote:
> Don't get me wrong - The ASG 29 is a great glider but its basically already
> a 20 year old design. It's really just a 27 with some extra long tips.
>

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 9:49:49 AM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> ...the ASG-29 is not an ASW-27 with long tips...

Is that so? What does the paperwork say it is?

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:16:20 AM UTC-7, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 9:49:49 AM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > ...the ASG-29 is not an ASW-27 with long tips...
>
> Is that so? What does the paperwork say it is?

Well and Bell Long Ranger B 206L is certified on the Bell Jet ranger cert B206B, but it is a different aircraft 36 inches longer, different engine, main rotor blades, tail boom, tail rotor blades...etc. Just because the type cert for an ASG-29 says ASW-27-18, does not mean it is the same, there are substantial differences.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 1:28:41 PM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 10:16:20 AM UTC-7, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> > On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 9:49:49 AM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > > ...the ASG-29 is not an ASW-27 with long tips...
> >
> > Is that so? What does the paperwork say it is?
>
> Well and Bell Long Ranger B 206L is certified on the Bell Jet ranger cert B206B, but it is a different aircraft 36 inches longer, different engine, main rotor blades, tail boom, tail rotor blades...etc. Just because the type cert for an ASG-29 says ASW-27-18, does not mean it is the same, there are substantial differences.

Cow piles! Regardless of what you or anyone else wants to call it, an aircraft is whatever the placard and/or legal paper work says it is. Next time you are around an ASG-29, go look at the placard.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Benson so much negativity, namaste. Logic might not be your forte, but an ASW-27-18 is an ASG-29, which is not an ASW-27.

An ASG-29 at 15 meters even has different wing area than 15 meter ASW-27 and is about 80 lbs heavier. Just because the 29 was certified under the same type cert does not mean there were not meaningful differences, wing root, tweaks to airfoil, wing span, mixer control, composite layup schedule, wing spar etc. Hence the different designation ASW-27 vs ASW27-18. And these changes were made by a different designer who had different ideas about what was needed to make this glider a winner at 18 meters.

As for cow piles, that comment usually stops the exchange of information and signals you are closed for any further exchange, I guess you already know everything, congratulations. You must be in a continually blissful state.


On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 11:47:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Cow piles! Regardless of what you or anyone else wants to call it, an aircraft is whatever the placard and/or legal paper work says it is. Next time you are around an ASG-29, go look at the placard.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 9:49:49 AM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> I know this post is 6 months old, but the ASG-29 is not an ASW-27 with long tips. It has changes to the airfoil, the wing fuselage junction, rudder and mixer. Sure it is based on the ASW-27 but it is a different glider, even in 15 meter configuration it has a different wing area than a 27.
>
> In no way does Schleicher rest on their laurels, which why they have a history of winners in 15 meter, 18 meter and open. The new turbo ASG-29Es,, is the first with a starter. While Jonkers and Lange are and were a welcome addition in technology and competition both the Schleicher and Schempp factory continue to make great gliders that push the limits of production/design/ while still being a viable business.
>
> On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 11:00:06 AM UTC-8, Gliding Guru wrote:
> > Don't get me wrong - The ASG 29 is a great glider but its basically already
> > a 20 year old design. It's really just a 27 with some extra long tips.
> >

My -27 has been parked next to a -29 all week at Nephi. We've flown together all week - we are both flying with 15-meter tips ;-). The -29 has a slightly different taper break to accommodate the 18-meter tips/span so the tip chord doesn't get too small.This necessitated going from the two-taper planform of the -27 to a three-taper planform even is 15-meter configuration on the -29. I'm sure there was some tweaking of the airfoil to accompany the changes in taper. The rudder has a slightly longer chord to go with the longer span in 18-meter configuration. The fuselage sure looks identical and I can't pick up any differences in how the flaps and ailerons function - it's the usual Schleicher arrangement. I expect the certification authorities allow a number of minor modifications to a design to still qualify as a derivative, which saves a lot on certification for the things that didn't change.

9B

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

The mixer is actually very different and Schleicher spent much time on this.. So is the lay up schedule for the spar, and an extra layer of carbon on the wing. Wing root airfoil is different and the outboard sections of airfoil have been changed. The empty weight of a 29 compared to a 27 both at 15 meters is about 80 pounds.

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 8:38:55 AM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> The mixer is actually very different and Schleicher spent much time on this. So is the lay up schedule for the spar, and an extra layer of carbon on the wing. Wing root airfoil is different and the outboard sections of airfoil have been changed. The empty weight of a 29 compared to a 27 both at 15 meters is about 80 pounds.

My ASW 27B empty weight was 542 lbs with instruments and one battery. My ASG 29 in 15 Meter(serial # 16) is 585 lbs with the same instruments and one battery. In 18 Meter my ASG 29 weights 606 pds. Been weighted many, many times.

Later models of 29 weight did change due to wing layup. 29 mixer is "blueprinted" so all are exactly the same. On the 27 mixer each was hand made which might have caused a variable which was thought to be not measurable. Remember when the flaps and ailerons are preset at the factory, they are checked very closely as the different selections are made, i.e., from 1 to landing flap.
Same exact mold used for the 27 fuselage is used for the 29 fuselage. Rudders just slightly bigger. Been to the factory, been over this several times. Even saw the 15 meter tip molds when the were brand spanking new.
In 15 Meter the difference between the 27 and 29 will be max wing loading as the 29 will have the higher wing loading of 12.2 V 11.2 for a 27.

JS 1 Jet versus ASG 29 sub with electric start? Either one would be a great choice and its really a owners choice. JS 1 will bring a lower wing loading and better climb in weak conditions. The 29 will have a higher wing loading and better running performance in strong conditions. Either one will be countless smiles!

#711.

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 11:38:55 AM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> The mixer is actually very different and Schleicher spent much time on this. So is the lay up schedule for the spar, and an extra layer of carbon on the wing. Wing root airfoil is different and the outboard sections of airfoil have been changed. The empty weight of a 29 compared to a 27 both at 15 meters is about 80 pounds.

Interesting to read this. When the '29 came out I heard there was a new outboard airfoil and wanted to modify my '27 with it. I pulled templates off a friend's '29 and lo and behold there was no perceptible difference. Certainly the winglet changed but we had done that in 2000. The winglet is very similar to what we did for the '27 back then with thicker, more conservative airfoil.
Obviously the structure changes when you go to 18M.
UH

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 12:58:28 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 11:38:55 AM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > The mixer is actually very different and Schleicher spent much time on this. So is the lay up schedule for the spar, and an extra layer of carbon on the wing. Wing root airfoil is different and the outboard sections of airfoil have been changed. The empty weight of a 29 compared to a 27 both at 15 meters is about 80 pounds.
>
> Interesting to read this. When the '29 came out I heard there was a new outboard airfoil and wanted to modify my '27 with it. I pulled templates off a friend's '29 and lo and behold there was no perceptible difference. Certainly the winglet changed but we had done that in 2000. The winglet is very similar to what we did for the '27 back then with thicker, more conservative airfoil.
> Obviously the structure changes when you go to 18M.
> UH

I am a bit perplexed as well.

The Schleicher mixer seems to be designed to assure that in landing flap the ailerons go to negative so the tips don't stall with the flaps at ~40 degrees. This doesn't strike me as something that requires a lot of fine-tuning, compared to (for example) making sure that the flap handle positions correspond to the correct flap angles so the pilot can set the correct flap position to match the airspeed and wing loading, per the Operating Manual. However, that exercise has more to do with matching the flap handle detents to the correct calculated/derived flap angles as part of manufacturing for each production unit more than anything to do with the mixer per se. It seems even less plausible if the airfoil sections are in fact the same.

9B

[Jim Pengelly]

I've spent a long time on this and I ordered a JS1 last month. The key difference for me is 15/18 vs 18/21. I fly a Discus BT and am of the opinion that 15m turbos don't work that well because of the higher minimum wing loading. I would probably fly a 29 in 18m 99% of the time so the 15m mode would be irrelevant. With the JS1 you can pop on 21m tips and blast around at 60:1. The other feature is purely fun related - i come from a family of fighter pilots but didn't get into the RAF, so having my own jet is the next best thing :-D

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 3:23:38 AM UTC-7, Jim Pengelly wrote:
> I've spent a long time on this and I ordered a JS1 last month. The key difference for me is 15/18 vs 18/21. I fly a Discus BT and am of the opinion that 15m turbos don't work that well because of the higher minimum wing loading. I would probably fly a 29 in 18m 99% of the time so the 15m mode would be irrelevant. With the JS1 you can pop on 21m tips and blast around at 60:1. The other feature is purely fun related - i come from a family of fighter pilots but didn't get into the RAF, so having my own jet is the next best thing :-D


Intersting. When I was searching for a glider to order I could not get a response back from either Jonkers nor Binder even after repeated attempts. Schleicher, Schempp, and even the former rep for Lange were all very prompt and responsive to questions and very helpful. As a former business owner, if a company cannot respond to inquiries to purchase, they certainly will not respond to lesser inquiries and it makes me wonder how they are organized and run. Just saying. Good luck with your new bird, and stay safe.

[Craig Reinholt]

> Interesting. When I was searching for a glider to order I could not get a response back from either Jonkers nor Binder even after repeated attempts.. Schleicher, Schempp, and even the former rep for Lange were all very prompt and responsive to questions and very helpful. As a former business owner, if a company cannot respond to inquiries to purchase, they certainly will not respond to lesser inquiries and it makes me wonder how they are organized and run. Just saying. Good luck with your new bird, and stay safe.


I contacted Jonkers last fall when trying to decide on a new glider. The factory AND the USA Sales Rep were very prompt and professional. I eventually went with Schleicher, but I had no reservations with my contact with Jonkers. Being a professional Buyer for 25 years and working with over 400 Sales Reps, in my opinion, they were excellent.
Craig

[Jim Pengelly]

I had the opposite experience in the UK. I dropped a note to the UK/Europe dealer Andy Davis and basically got 24/7 replies to my emails/telephone calls asking hundreds of questions for weeks on end. I struggled to get anything out of the Schempp-Hirth agent and the Schleicher agent was OK. I guess they are very low volume sales and I imagine that a lot of the customers have already decided what they want before they get in touch so they aren't really selling they are just accepting orders. I know from Andy Davis that both M&D (JS's European partner for EASA certification and supplier of the jet turbine) and JS in SA are absolutely flat out so it's great to have a good agent to get information out of them.

[Tony[_5_]]

Your experience does not compute with my extensive personal experience or the experiences related to me by others about the JS agent in the US.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 1:06:28 PM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:

>
> Intersting. When I was searching for a glider to order I could not get a response back from either Jonkers nor Binder even after repeated attempts. Schleicher, Schempp, and even the former rep for Lange were all very prompt and responsive to questions and very helpful. As a former business owner, if a company cannot respond to inquiries to purchase, they certainly will not respond to lesser inquiries and it makes me wonder how they are organized and run. Just saying. Good luck with your new bird, and stay safe.


Jonathan, what country do you live in?

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

I live in the US. Still have never received a return email to two inquires each to Jonkers and Binder.
On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 10:52:53 PM UTC-7, wrote:

>
> Jonathan, what country do you live in?

[[email protected]]

Does your email signature contain references to Prozac, anatomical enlargement, Nigerian royalty or Russian brides? :P

Jokes aside, my primary email ) is constantly relegated to spam folders. This is despite it being issued by the world's biggest tech company, hardly a fly-by-night spam factory.

Anyway, perhaps you're experiencing similar. I had to recind a fatwah issued against an unresponsive Costello once it was determined their spam filter had been quarantining my emails. A lot of folks don't bother to scan their junk folder at all.

CJ

[David Kinsell[_2_]]

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 00:47:41 -0700, clewis9027 wrote:


> Jokes aside, my primary email ) is constantly relegated to spam
> folders. This is despite it being issued by the world's biggest tech
> company, hardly a fly-by-night spam factory.
>

No, but some of the users may be spammers. If your email gets sent from
the same IP address as a spam factory, it may well get flagged as spam.

> Anyway, perhaps you're experiencing similar. I had to recind a fatwah
> issued against an unresponsive Costello once it was determined their
> spam filter had been quarantining my emails. A lot of folks don't bother
> to scan their junk folder at all.
>

It's not just spam filters, lots of email just gets dumped. Not nearly
as reliable as people assume it is. Jonathan may have to (gasp!)
actually call.

> CJ

-Dave