Handling characteristics of 18 (and 15) meter sailplanes???

[NoSpam]

I am trying to get honest and accurate information on the general handling
characteristics of a couple of 18 meter class sailplanes. Here is what I am
interested in. I would appreciate some honest feedback, preferably backed
up by some experience in the sailplane that you would like to give feedback
on, rather than rumor and "speculation"... Also, I am not a competition
pilot, and am more interested in leisure fun flying. Thus, all out speed
and climbing performance is not as important as handling characteristics and
the "fun factor"...

I am most interested in:

* DG-808B
* Ventus-2c & Ventus-2cx
* ASH 26

and possibly:

* ASW 28-18 and 28 (15 m)
* LS8
* Discus 2 (15 M)
* ASW 27B

Your thoughts and feedback will be appreciated.

Thank you.

Cameron




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[bumper]

That's a diverse lot, and includes some very nice handling gliders (from
what I've heard, since I've only flown one from your list). Since you've
listed both self-launchers and not, you must have other considerations
driving your decision too?

I narrowed down my choice to the 808B and 26E two years ago. The 26 won and
I've been happy with that decision. The 26e is a beutifully crafted machine,
as is all Schleicher stuff. Unfortunately the dollar / euro situation, along
with scarcity of 26's for sale, is keeping the used prices high.
--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."

"NoSpam" > wrote in message
...
> I am trying to get honest and accurate information on the general handling
> characteristics of a couple of 18 meter class sailplanes. Here is what I
am
> interested in. I would appreciate some honest feedback, preferably backed
> up by some experience in the sailplane that you would like to give
feedback
> on, rather than rumor and "speculation"... Also, I am not a competition
> pilot, and am more interested in leisure fun flying. Thus, all out speed
> and climbing performance is not as important as handling characteristics
and
> the "fun factor"...
>
> I am most interested in:
>
> * DG-808B
> * Ventus-2c & Ventus-2cx
> * ASH 26
>
> and possibly:
>
> * ASW 28-18 and 28 (15 m)
> * LS8
> * Discus 2 (15 M)
> * ASW 27B
>
> Your thoughts and feedback will be appreciated.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Cameron
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

[Chris OCallaghan]

Here are my opinions of the ones I've flown

>
> * DG-808B
> * Ventus-2c & Ventus-2cx
> * ASH 26
>
> and possibly:
>
> * ASW 28-18 and 28 (15 m)
> * LS8:

Best handling glider ever. An absolute joy to fly. A little
underruddered in 18m configuration, but not so much that it is
troublesome. Like most unflapped sailplanes, requires more skill to
land short. Drum brake is ineffective and the heel brakes are awkward
until you get used to them.

> * Discus 2 (15 M)
> * ASW 27B

Another excellent handler. Flaps allow short landings. Excellent glide
ratio at low speeds. If the LS-8 rates 98 for handling, the 27
deserves a 95.

>
> Your thoughts and feedback will be appreciated.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Cameron
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Vaughan]

I can offer some impressions of one of the glider types you have
mentioned. My background, I flew a Pik 20E for 10 years, last year I
purchased a DG800A (18/15 metre span, air frame same as DG 800B) and
have about 60 hours in it. I pursue recreational cross-country soaring
only, no competition (except the OLC), and I am very please with the
new glider. The transition from the Pik to the DG was smooth and
quick. In my opinion the DG is the better handling machine by a slight
margin. The major points I noted about the DG were:

1. Excellent cockpit ergonomics, 10 hour flight and still comfortable
2. Good visibility ( plus warm feet, even during winter wave flights)
3. Good roll rate, grooves well in thermals making it easier to centre
and climb efficiently
4. Excellent approach control with landing flap and spoilers
5. Increase in performance over the Pik was quite an eye opener, the
18 metre span coupled with lighter weight and lower wing loading of
the DG opened up weak weather scratching ability that I did not
previously have, while it still performed well at high speeds.
6. Taxiing ability, even in 35 knot crosswinds is excellent, precise
and fully controlled. This is entirely a function of the well designed
DG tail wheel.
7. Low cockpit noise level at high speeds
8. Logical and easy engine operations, although a lot more complicated
than the simple mechanical system of the Pik

I have not flown any of the other machines you listed, but I did
compare the numbers to contrast the Ventus 2Cm and the ASH 26E when I
was in the market. The fixed 18 metre span of the 26E made it a
difficult fit in my hanger, the 13 liter main tank of the Ventus meant
that I would have to manage three fuel tanks, main plus 2 wing tanks,
for most of my wave flight launches. Both the 26E and the 2CM would
operate at a higher minimum wing loading compared to the 800. My
impression is that there is not much to choose between the three
gliders, it comes down to fine details and personal preference. I
would however recommend 18 metre tip extensions, if available, on any
glider you choose as cost effective performance increase.

[Eric Greenwell]

NoSpam wrote:
> I am trying to get honest and accurate information on the general handling
> characteristics of a couple of 18 meter class sailplanes. Here is what I am
> interested in. I would appreciate some honest feedback, preferably backed
> up by some experience in the sailplane that you would like to give feedback
> on, rather than rumor and "speculation"... Also, I am not a competition
> pilot, and am more interested in leisure fun flying. Thus, all out speed
> and climbing performance is not as important as handling characteristics and
> the "fun factor"...
>
> I am most interested in:
>
> * DG-808B
> * Ventus-2c & Ventus-2cx
> * ASH 26
>
> and possibly:
>
> * ASW 28-18 and 28 (15 m)
> * LS8
> * Discus 2 (15 M)
> * ASW 27B

I think the biggest decision here is not the handling, but whether you
want a powered (DG-808B, ASH 26E) or unpowered glider (all the rest of
them).

In any case, they are all fine handling gliders, and if the nuances of
handling are important to you, you should arrange to fly some of them.
There are some differences in landing (flaps vs no flaps, 18 m vs 15 m),
but I'm assuming this isn't the "handling" you are talking about.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Rory O'Conor]

I fly a DG800B. This handles fine, just as easy as Discus and DG300 which I
previously flew.
I am a comparative novice. Main advantage is engine which has various
advantages:

a) can be fully independant and dont have to wait for launch on good day
b) can fly and explore on marginal days
c) no excuse not to fly because fuel cost to launch less than winch launch
d) can fly and explore beyond normal range without retrieve crew on standby

but
a learning curve - flaps, engine etc
engine may not always start - always have field planned first!
more things to go wrong
(I experienced 2 ASI failures, 2 engine non-starts, a canopy flash-freeze,
plenty of LX5000 probs
amongst other things last year)
expensive capital cost.

Other plus point - pee tube (and also performance etc etc)

I have already had numerous flights in a range of conditions this year
(including one or two good thermals) whilst the majority of the
cross-country pilots
remain on the ground for a few more months waiting for the summer sun.

I probably flew twice as much last year as I would have done if I had not
had an SLMG.
And did far more demanding tasks, included all Gold Badge and much more.

-14 flap still remains almost unused (requires 90+ knots) so still plenty of
scope to improve.

Apart from initial cost and traditionalism - "gliders dont have engines", I
cannot
understand why so few people have SLMG.

Rory O'Conor - Sutton Bank, Yorkshire

------------------------------------------------------------
I am trying to get honest and accurate information on the general handling
characteristics of a couple of 18 meter class sailplanes.

the "fun factor"...

I am most interested in:

* DG-808B
* Ventus-2c & Ventus-2cx
* ASH 26
Your thoughts and feedback will be appreciated.

Thank you.

Cameron

[Stewart Kissel]

Snip-

Apart from initial cost and traditionalism - 'gliders
dont have engines', I
cannot
understand why so few people have SLMG.

Snip

Well I certainly cannot argue with the intial cost
being a drawback, but not sure about the tradionalism.
Besides being expensive, one might consider

1.) Density altitude
2.) Reliability of the engine
3.) Noise(probably more an issue in Europe)

Although improvements are being made, and there seems
to be fewer lawn-mower engines in them, I am most interested
in seeing how the electric-motored versions do.

[Eric Greenwell]

Rory O'Conor wrote:

> Apart from initial cost and traditionalism - "gliders dont have engines", I
> cannot
> understand why so few people have SLMG.

"Apart from the cost"? It is the cost. If a motor could be added for
$2000, everyone would have one, but not at $25,000 for the motor,
typical for the German gliders. THe newer, smaller motorgliders like the
Russia AC-5M (over 30 sold in a very short time), Apis, and Silent will
add a lot of motorgliders to the fleet, because the motor is more like
$10,000 additional, and the glider is cheaper to begin with.

Even so, the complexity alone will keep many out of motorgliders; and
some simply don't need the advantages of self-launchers because they
already get the flying they want when they want it.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Martin Hellman]

> Rory O'Conor wrote:
>
> > Apart from initial cost and traditionalism - "gliders dont have engines", I
> > cannot
> > understand why so few people have SLMG.

I suspect that Eric's earlier response, about the higher capital cost
of a SLSP or MG is the main reason there aren't more of them. I know
several people who flew pure gliders until they could afford a MG or
SLSP.

But, in addition to the capital cost, there's also the higher ongoing
maintenance cost -- both in $ and time. I sometimes joke that a motor
glider has 10x the maintenance of a pure glider, but is 10x more
useful.

While the actual numbers depend on the specific ship and are hard to
pin down, in reality, for me, I suspect the maintenance increase is
more like a factor of 2-4, not 10, but the utility factor increase is
well over 10 times. So, for me, the extra work is well worth it. But,
for someone else with different constraints and options, adding a
motor might not be worth the trouble. What are some of the factors
that make a SLSP/MG more or less useful?

1. Whether you live near good soaring. I live in the SF Bay Area, with
minimal local soaring. If I lived in Minden, the value of an engine
would be smaller. With a MG, it's a lot closer to living in Minden. I
can fly there in 1.5 hours, so I've done a number of 1 day soaring
trips, launching about noon, returning about 6 PM, with three hours of
great soaring in the middle. A weekend is even better, but would be
minimal if I had a 5 hour drive to Minden, and then back again.

2. Distance to a gliderport vs. an airport that can handle a MG.

3. Whether you are willing to do cross country soaring without an
engine. For the year that I flew pure gliders, I never strayed out of
gliding distance of the glider port -- tho at Minden that could mean
quite some distance on a good day. I wasn't willing to take the chance
of having to land out, and be stuck til an aero retrieve or trailer
could fetch me, possibly not until the next day. I had always intended
moving quickly to a MG so I could do cross country soaring with less
uncertainty as to my return time.

4. Taste. Some people like me will love the freedom of an engine being
there. Others will scoff at the lack of purity. Neither is right or
wrong. Just different tastes. And tastes change with time, so the guy
who was a purist in his 20's might opt for an engine in his 50's --
when he's also more likely to be able to afford it.

Martin

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Rory O'Conor wrote:
>
> > Apart from initial cost and traditionalism - "gliders dont have
engines", I
> > cannot
> > understand why so few people have SLMG.
>
> "Apart from the cost"? It is the cost. If a motor could be added for
> $2000, everyone would have one, but not at $25,000 for the motor,
> typical for the German gliders. THe newer, smaller motorgliders like the
> Russia AC-5M (over 30 sold in a very short time), Apis, and Silent will
> add a lot of motorgliders to the fleet, because the motor is more like
> $10,000 additional, and the glider is cheaper to begin with.
>
> Even so, the complexity alone will keep many out of motorgliders; and
> some simply don't need the advantages of self-launchers because they
> already get the flying they want when they want it.
>
> --
> -----
> change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>
You can buy a lot of launches (especially ground launches) for $25K, or even
$10K.

I know the reliability factor has improved, but many hours on the ground
were spent in maintenance and tuning and fettling for the early adopters. I
think today it's much better, but then today's reliability came at a price.

Though the convenience factor is an interesting consideration, I personally
view soaring as a sociable pastime and prefer gathering together with the
faithful in its pursuit.

I could also scuba dive and sail alone, but it was more dangerous and lonely
than doing it in a gaggle.

Don't get me wrong, I looked long and hard at the DG-400 in the early
1980's. Self launching has its place, but given the choice, I'll take a
ground launch, aerotow, or self launch, in that order.

Frank Whiteley
Colorado

[rk]

"NoSpam" > wrote in message >...
> I am trying to get honest and accurate information on the general handling
> characteristics of a couple of 18 meter class sailplanes. Here is what I am
> interested in. I would appreciate some honest feedback, preferably backed
> up by some experience in the sailplane that you would like to give feedback
> on, rather than rumor and "speculation"... Also, I am not a competition
> pilot, and am more interested in leisure fun flying. Thus, all out speed
> and climbing performance is not as important as handling characteristics and
> the "fun factor"...
>
> I am most interested in:
>
> * DG-808B
> * Ventus-2c & Ventus-2cx
> * ASH 26
>
> and possibly:
>
> * ASW 28-18 and 28 (15 m)
> * LS8
> * Discus 2 (15 M)
> * ASW 27B
>
> Your thoughts and feedback will be appreciated.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Cameron
>

I´ve flown LS8 (15m), Discus-2b (winglets) and Ventus-2c (15 and 18m).

LS8 is the best, light and effective controls, especially the
ailerons. Quiet cockpit but a tight fit for me (194cm). Crappy
quality, gelcoat goes partly yellow in 3-5 years (wittnessed this in
every LS8 i have seen. And i´ve seen dozens).

LS is (very) closely followed by the Ventus-2c with 15m tips.
Comparable controls but control harmony changes with the different
flap settings (of course). Acceleration is breathtaking and makes you
glide too fast with a huge grin on your face. Noisy cockpit (the new
c/bx/cx-cockpit trademark). 18m tips makes aileron bit more
ineffective and heavy. Still the glider is from different world
compared to older Ventus.

Discus-2b: Little bit slower/heavier ailerons than LS. Very harmonious
though. Flying this glider makes you feel it has 16 meters span. Calm
and steady, note that you may actually prefer this. Climbs better in
turbulent thermals and leaves LS on high speed pull-up, in normal
flying no difference. Comfortable cockpit but the noise is pain in the
ass (and ears). Bit more diffult to land than LS, I think the wing is
higher and landing gear taller so you don´t get much of cushion
between ground and wing. Less airbrakes at round-out solves this but
makes longer landing distances.

Choosing from the gliders you listed, you propably can´t go wrong. DG
aileron heaviness is the thing I would check before buying it (i don´t
have any first hand knowledge, just heard few reports).

Hope this helps,

rk

[bumper]

"F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
...
>
> Don't get me wrong, I looked long and hard at the DG-400 in the early
> 1980's. Self launching has its place, but given the choice, I'll take a
> ground launch, aerotow, or self launch, in that order.
>
> Frank Whiteley
> Colorado
>
>

Frank,

I wouldn't argue about your choice of launches, getting checked out for
ground launch remains one of my goals.

Eric Greenwell has said it before, it's all about opportunity. It's not just
about the launch, though not having to wait can be nice. It's being able to
head out with no concern for retrieves, or being unable to get home for
dinner and much more. A SL allows me to soar in places I'd not otherwise
consider, like launching from the Bay Area and soaring Yosemite, then on to
Lee Vining and up to Minden. Or flying an 8 day safari from CA to Telluride
with 3 other SLs . . . no tag-along tow plane needed. It's about opportunity
and freedom . . . yes there's a price.

I've heard 75% of new German gliders are ordered with motors, so people are
stepping up and paying that price. People will do that sort of thing when it
comes to freedom.

--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."

[Eric Greenwell]

F.L. Whiteley wrote:

> You can buy a lot of launches (especially ground launches) for $25K, or even
> $10K.

When you sell your glider, you'll get paid for the motor, but not any
aerotows! The real cost isn't buying the motor, but the additional cost
of insuring the glider because it is worth more; the motor maintenance;
and whatever "opportunity cost" you put on having money tied up in the
motor.

Costs avoided are launches, aero or ground retrieves, and travel costs
to a more distant gliderport (auto costs, motel, food) versus the local
airport. The net cost to the pilot is very dependent on where and how
much they fly, and the type of flying they do. The net cost per year is
far smaller than the cost of the motor.

>
> I know the reliability factor has improved, but many hours on the ground
> were spent in maintenance and tuning and fettling for the early adopters. I
> think today it's much better, but then today's reliability came at a price.

It is much better, and the fettling can be done when you can't fly, such
as in the winter, evenings, etc. For many of us, avoiding the long drive
to the gliderport, the long wait for a tow, the late night retrieve, all
add up to time saved compared to the unpowered glider.

> Though the convenience factor is an interesting consideration, I personally
> view soaring as a sociable pastime and prefer gathering together with the
> faithful in its pursuit.

So do the powered sailplane pilots I know! You don't have to fly by
yourself to take advantage of the opportunities of a powered sailplane.
I've also found a great day of soaring is still a great day, even if no
one flies with me that day.

>
> I could also scuba dive and sail alone, but it was more dangerous and lonely
> than doing it in a gaggle.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I looked long and hard at the DG-400 in the early
> 1980's. Self launching has its place, but given the choice, I'll take a
> ground launch, aerotow, or self launch, in that order.

Ah, and there's the rub: for many of us that choice isn't there. No tows
during the week where I live, not even if I want to drive 150 miles.

A pilot like yourself, with readily available tows, might find a
sustainer sailplane gives you the freedom to explore soaring without the
hassle and cost of the self-launcher.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[soarski]

"bumper" > wrote in message >...
> "F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Don't get me wrong, I looked long and hard at the DG-400 in the early
> > 1980's. Self launching has its place, but given the choice, I'll take a
> > ground launch, aerotow, or self launch, in that order.
> >
> > Frank Whiteley
> > Colorado
> >
> >
> Hi there Eastern Slopes!

I know you guys get your kicks playing with your winch! I have the
experience, sign off, do get some more in Germany when visiting.

Where I fly, only SL is possible anymore, with a mile long taxi to the
take off point. I think there is only one place in western CO left,
that does conventional Soaring. There are several Selflaunchers
though. Possibly it has to do with real estate, in certain areas.
Ground Launch where you have a lot of it. Where you have a lot of open
space you do not get enough people together to run a winch operation.
You are the exeption, nice! You do need help. Sometimes I decide to go
flying as late as 5 O'clock middle of the summer any day, no one else
to call, only the tower for take off clearance.

I have flown two different types of SLs during the last 11 years, and
had years where there was hardly any maintenance between Annuals. My
towplanes that I used to own had more.

Note that during the "Worlds" Germans and Poles were flying SLs in the
open class.

My first Motorglider I owned, was in 1966 a .....Rheinflugzeugbau RW
3, powered by a 90 hp Porsche Super 90 converted to aircraft use and
type certificated by the FAA,...the airframe was too!

Dieter
Gliders Of Aspen

[Bill Daniels]

"soarski" > wrote in message
om...

>
> My first Motorglider I owned, was in 1966 a .....Rheinflugzeugbau RW
> 3, powered by a 90 hp Porsche Super 90 converted to aircraft use and
> type certificated by the FAA,...the airframe was too!
>
> Dieter
> Gliders Of Aspen

Dieter, I think I remember that one. Did it have the prop in a slot between
the fin and rudder?

Bill Daniels

[Cameron]

Thank you to every one whom has replied and provided some feedback. I
appreciate it, and now have a lot of food for thought...

:-) *grin*

Cameron


"NoSpam" > wrote in message
...
> I am trying to get honest and accurate information on the general handling
> characteristics of a couple of 18 meter class sailplanes. Here is what I
am
> interested in. I would appreciate some honest feedback, preferably backed
> up by some experience in the sailplane that you would like to give
feedback
> on, rather than rumor and "speculation"... Also, I am not a competition
> pilot, and am more interested in leisure fun flying. Thus, all out speed
> and climbing performance is not as important as handling characteristics
and
> the "fun factor"...




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[soarski]

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message >...
> "soarski" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> >
> > My first Motorglider I owned, was in 1966 a .....Rheinflugzeugbau RW
> > 3, powered by a 90 hp Porsche Super 90 converted to aircraft use and
> > type certificated by the FAA,...the airframe was too!
> >
> > Dieter
> > Gliders Of Aspen
>
> Dieter, I think I remember that one. Did it have the prop in a slot between
> the fin and rudder?
>
> Bill Daniels



Yes Bill!

It had a long driveshaft from the mid engine, to the prop there, which
worked well. All Metal with fabric aft Fuselage, front fiberglass
shell. Wings, similar to the Blanik. Tricicle gear, electric. Big
flaps, no spoilers.
I flew it into Jeffco a couple of times.

Dieter