Re: First Glider

[Jeff Runciman]

Thanks for all of the advise. I may have to get a
glider in between 30 and 35 ld. I am concerned about
getting in deeper than I should and not having fun.
It is possible that I should get a club class glider
due to my hang gliding experience (tighter turn radius?).
A PW5 or Russia may be an answer. I will be spending
sometime dual in a Lark. Two questions: What happened
to Russia Sailplanes? Were there any other gliders
that compare to the PW5 and the AC5?

Thank you again for your help.

Jeff

[Mark James Boyd]

Jeff Runciman > wrote:
>Thanks for all of the advise. I may have to get a
>glider in between 30 and 35 ld. I am concerned about
>getting in deeper than I should and not having fun.
>It is possible that I should get a club class glider
>due to my hang gliding experience (tighter turn radius?).
> A PW5 or Russia may be an answer. I will be spending
>sometime dual in a Lark. Two questions: What happened
>to Russia Sailplanes? Were there any other gliders
>that compare to the PW5 and the AC5?

The USA distributor for Russia sailplanes seems to have been
"fired." And a note he wrote online said it looked like
the manuf. wasn't going to support as much anymore anyway.

I really liked the idea of light gliders, so I'm sorry to see
the USA Russia pipeline and distributor dry up, if this is
in fact what has happened (but hey, the website is gone).

I'll tell ya, however, that I outgrew flying non-retract
pretty quick. You might be better off buying a retract and
just getting a warning system (if spoilers are opened
before gear is down, the horn buzzes).

You might also look at the Sparrowhawk:

http://www.windward-performance.com/
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[OscarCVox]

>Were there any other gliders
>that compare to the PW5 and the AC5?

About the same price
Junior - Stronger and better performance
Astir/grob 102 - large cockpit, retract better performance.
ASW15 good handling, retract, getting a bit old now.
Libelle lovely good performance, good handling - if you are small enough to fit
in the cockpit.
Avoid wood. They are lovely to fly but you have to spend so much time and money
keeping them in good condition they are not worth it.
I would go for a 15m glider as they seem to offer the best performance/cost
ratio. Flaps are an unnecesary complication and expense

Several ex hang glider pilots I know make excellent glider pilots. In fact one
has just qualified for the british team in the next world championships! Get
something that you enjoy flying an constantly keep striving to extend your
experiences and skills.

[Janos Bauer]

OscarCVox wrote:
>>Were there any other gliders
>>that compare to the PW5 and the AC5?

std Cirrus, you still can find the manufacturer...
It's a bit tricky to fly it at the beginning (all flying tail) but
after 2-3 landings you will like it.

/Janos

[Eric Greenwell]

Janos Bauer wrote:
> OscarCVox wrote:
>
>>> Were there any other gliders
>>> that compare to the PW5 and the AC5?
>
>
> std Cirrus, you still can find the manufacturer...
> It's a bit tricky to fly it at the beginning (all flying tail) but
> after 2-3 landings you will like it.

Suggesting the Std Cirrus "compares" to the PW5 and the AC5 (probably
meant the AC4 - AC5 is a motorglider) is a big stretch. I've flown all
three, owned the Cirrus, and the "bit tricky" part extends well past the
first 2-3 landinds! The other two are easier fly, and I would be safer
for the "low time" pilot. Even then, there are noticeable differences
between a PW5 and an AC4, such as landing speed.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[For Example John Smith]

Have a look at the Sparrowhawk and club class ships.
"Jeff Runciman" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks for all of the advise. I may have to get a
> glider in between 30 and 35 ld. I am concerned about
> getting in deeper than I should and not having fun.
> It is possible that I should get a club class glider
> due to my hang gliding experience (tighter turn radius?).
> A PW5 or Russia may be an answer. I will be spending
> sometime dual in a Lark. Two questions: What happened
> to Russia Sailplanes? Were there any other gliders
> that compare to the PW5 and the AC5?
>
> Thank you again for your help.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>

[Willie]

> OscarCVox wrote:
> >>Were there any other gliders
> >>that compare to the PW5 and the AC5?

Take a look at the Alisport Silent 2
It offers good performance similar to or better than a PW5
or Russia and is available new. I own the original club version
and am very pleased with it's performance. My ship climbs as well
or better than any of the 15 meter glass birds and I stay up on
weak lift days very easily.

There are more considerations than just L/D when it comes to
buying your first ship. The wings are lighter and it assembles easily,
and with the shorter wings fits in the hanger nicely.

I preferred buying new fiberglass over a 20+ year old ship.
most (all) of the used ones I looked at had crazing and cracks in the
gel coat, and paying for a refinish would have made the costs too
high.

I'm not selling them, I am just a satisfied owner. I don't fly competition
but I can fly my Silent cross country very easily knowing it will land in
a smaller field and at a slower speed than some of the higher performance
racing sailplanes.

Willie
Silent 39 - (EK)

[Gus Rasch]

Jeff Runciman > wrote in message >...
> Thanks for all of the advise. I may have to get a
> glider in between 30 and 35 ld. I am concerned about
> getting in deeper than I should and not having fun.
> It is possible that I should get a club class glider
> due to my hang gliding experience (tighter turn radius?).
> A PW5 or Russia may be an answer. I will be spending
> sometime dual in a Lark. Two questions: What happened
> to Russia Sailplanes? Were there any other gliders
> that compare to the PW5 and the AC5?
>
> Thank you again for your help.
>
> Jeff



Jeff,

The Russia is an outstanding first glider! I know, I have one. I
recently got it and have put 22 hours on it in 45 days.

Mine is the second Russia at the club and after watching the easy
assembly, ground handling and loads of airtime the other guy was
getting with his it made my decision easy!

In reference to performance and handling...It climbs almost as well as
the PW and runs better in between thermals. Taped up with the root
cuffs and the gear put away it gets 35 to 1. It has really nice
handling, light and nimble without being twitchy.

Lots of room, I am 6'2" with room to spare. Super easy to rig and
ground handle. Automatic hookups on everything, try finding that on
30 year old glass. Did I mention the light weight? Mines 310 pounds,
making it easy to deal with on the ground and you really feel the air
your flying in. As an ex hang glider pilot, I really like that.

In reference to the distributer/importer issue....That is currently
being worked on and should be back in place by late 04 or early 05.

I believe there are around 60 in the US and I have never met an owner
who wasn't pleased with their decision. There is a Yahoo group
dedicated to the design and if you do a little research you will find
happy owners with few issues and lots of smiles and airtime.

Gus
AC4-CK
Houston, TX.
281 705-9701

[John Cochrane]

> Thanks for all of the advise. I may have to get a
> glider in between 30 and 35 ld. I am concerned about
> getting in deeper than I should and not having fun.
> It is possible that I should get a club class glider
> due to my hang gliding experience (tighter turn radius?).

A dissenting view: There is no reason except money that one should buy
an ancient club-class glider or a low-performance PW5 type glider as a
"first glider."

Sailplanes are very different from hang-gliders or paragliders in this
respect. In hang gliding or paragliding, high performance gliders are
much harder to fly and much more dangerous than older or "club-class"
gliders, and inappropriate for beginners. In sailplanes, the latest
standard or 15 meter gliders (ASW 27/28, Discus 2/Ventus 2) are easier
to fly and much safer (safety cockpit, more benign stall/spin,
automatic hookups, better control on takeoff, better spoilers and
flaps on landing) than older gliders typically bought by beginners.
They also happen to have more performance. They also happen to cost a
LOT more.

In buying a "club-class" glider (Std. Cirrus, etc.) you are giving up
flying characteristics, safety, convenience, and adding the task of
maintaining an antique. There is no flying or safety advantage. The
only reason to do it is that they are a lot cheaper.

"World class" gliders (PW5, Russia) have no safety or ease of flight
advantages either. They offer a different spot on the
price/newness/performance curve, that's all.

Rich beginners should feel no compunction in buying the latest
standard or 15 meter glider. We end up with more experienced pilots in
new gliders only because what we "can afford" seems to change with
time as the addiction level of this sport builds up.

John Cochrane BB

[Bill Daniels]

"John Cochrane" > wrote in message
m...
> > Thanks for all of the advise. I may have to get a
> > glider in between 30 and 35 ld. I am concerned about
> > getting in deeper than I should and not having fun.
> > It is possible that I should get a club class glider
> > due to my hang gliding experience (tighter turn radius?).
>
> A dissenting view: There is no reason except money that one should buy
> an ancient club-class glider or a low-performance PW5 type glider as a
> "first glider."
>
> Sailplanes are very different from hang-gliders or paragliders in this
> respect. In hang gliding or paragliding, high performance gliders are
> much harder to fly and much more dangerous than older or "club-class"
> gliders, and inappropriate for beginners. In sailplanes, the latest
> standard or 15 meter gliders (ASW 27/28, Discus 2/Ventus 2) are easier
> to fly and much safer (safety cockpit, more benign stall/spin,
> automatic hookups, better control on takeoff, better spoilers and
> flaps on landing) than older gliders typically bought by beginners.
> They also happen to have more performance. They also happen to cost a
> LOT more.
>
> In buying a "club-class" glider (Std. Cirrus, etc.) you are giving up
> flying characteristics, safety, convenience, and adding the task of
> maintaining an antique. There is no flying or safety advantage. The
> only reason to do it is that they are a lot cheaper.
>
> "World class" gliders (PW5, Russia) have no safety or ease of flight
> advantages either. They offer a different spot on the
> price/newness/performance curve, that's all.
>
> Rich beginners should feel no compunction in buying the latest
> standard or 15 meter glider. We end up with more experienced pilots in
> new gliders only because what we "can afford" seems to change with
> time as the addiction level of this sport builds up.
>
> John Cochrane BB

Let me add an enthusiastic second to John excellent post above. Handling
qualities and performance are not inversely related. Bad gliders handle and
perform badly. Good gliders handle and perform well. Buy the best you can
afford.

I would differ a tiny bit on John's comment on "antique gliders". My 24
year old Nimbus 2C would probably qualify as an antique in John's view but
it has been very well supported by Shempp Hirth. Those parts I have needed
have always been in stock.

Glass is glass. Maintenance on older glass is about the same as with newer
ships. The metal parts can be fabricated if the factory doesn't supply
them. In some cases, the older resins and gel coat are superior to that
found on the newest ships. Take a look at a 40 year old Libelle and then
look at the shrinkage over the spar on a 2 year old ASW 27.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels

[Bob Gibbons]

On 07 Sep 2004 09:35:40 GMT, (OscarCVox) wrote:

.... text deleted
>Avoid wood. They are lovely to fly but you have to spend so much time and money
>keeping them in good condition they are not worth it.
>

Since this is a thread intended for those unfamilar with purchasing
and maintaining sailplanes, I cannot let this statement go
unchallenged.

Older wooden sailplanes are not as robust to mishandling as the newer
fiberglass gliders, and this might be a factor for a club operation.

However, for a personally owned sailplane, older wooden gliders are no
more difficult to keep in good flying condition than any other
sailplane that is given good care. I owned and flew a Ka-6E for half a
dozen years with no significant maintenance problems, and our club has
a pilot who has been flying an early 60's Slingsby Skylark 4 for the
past 30 years with no maintenance problems. Modern synthetic fabrics
can last for decades with proper storage of the sailplane.

Do not rule out a great flying (and very affordable) ship like the
Ka-6 or Skylark for worries about maintenance.

Bob

[Janos Bauer]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Janos Bauer wrote:
>
>> OscarCVox wrote:
>>
>>>> Were there any other gliders
>>>> that compare to the PW5 and the AC5?
>>
>>
>>
>> std Cirrus, you still can find the manufacturer...
>> It's a bit tricky to fly it at the beginning (all flying tail) but
>> after 2-3 landings you will like it.
>
>
> Suggesting the Std Cirrus "compares" to the PW5 and the AC5 (probably
> meant the AC4 - AC5 is a motorglider) is a big stretch. I've flown all
> three, owned the Cirrus, and the "bit tricky" part extends well past the
> first 2-3 landinds! The other two are easier fly, and I would be safer
> for the "low time" pilot. Even then, there are noticeable differences
> between a PW5 and an AC4, such as landing speed.
>

It always depends on the pilot. I did my basic training in IS28B2,
something similar experience would help.
Yes, I always have that strange feeling in my stomach when I sit in
the cirrus but when I'm higher than 100m it disappears and I'm rewarded
with a relatively good performance;)

/Janos

[Janos Bauer]

I forgot to agree with the previous post: YES the trailer is really
important! Don't underestimate it!!

/Janos

[Wayne Paul]

Bob,

Your old Ka-6E is stored in a hangar and still airworthy. However, the
current owner has not flown it since I sold it to him eight years ago.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/

"Bob Gibbons" > wrote in message
...
> On 07 Sep 2004 09:35:40 GMT, (OscarCVox) wrote:
>
> ... text deleted
> >Avoid wood. They are lovely to fly but you have to spend so much time and
money
> >keeping them in good condition they are not worth it.
> >
>
> Since this is a thread intended for those unfamilar with purchasing
> and maintaining sailplanes, I cannot let this statement go
> unchallenged.
>
> Older wooden sailplanes are not as robust to mishandling as the newer
> fiberglass gliders, and this might be a factor for a club operation.
>
> However, for a personally owned sailplane, older wooden gliders are no
> more difficult to keep in good flying condition than any other
> sailplane that is given good care. I owned and flew a Ka-6E for half a
> dozen years with no significant maintenance problems, and our club has
> a pilot who has been flying an early 60's Slingsby Skylark 4 for the
> past 30 years with no maintenance problems. Modern synthetic fabrics
> can last for decades with proper storage of the sailplane.
>
> Do not rule out a great flying (and very affordable) ship like the
> Ka-6 or Skylark for worries about maintenance.
>
> Bob
>

[Bill Daniels]

"Janos Bauer" > wrote in message
...
> It always depends on the pilot. I did my basic training in IS28B2,
> something similar experience would help.
> Yes, I always have that strange feeling in my stomach when I sit in
> the cirrus but when I'm higher than 100m it disappears and I'm rewarded
> with a relatively good performance;)
>
> /Janos

The IS28B2 used as a trainer will prepare a pilot to fly any high
performance flapped ship. I stepped out of one into a Nimbus 2C and felt
right at home. We need another trainer like the Lark to reduce some of the
accidents we see as pilots transition to performance glass.

Bill Daniels

[Janos Bauer]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> "Janos Bauer" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> It always depends on the pilot. I did my basic training in IS28B2,
>>something similar experience would help.
>> Yes, I always have that strange feeling in my stomach when I sit in
>>the cirrus but when I'm higher than 100m it disappears and I'm rewarded
>>with a relatively good performance;)
>>
>>/Janos
>
>
> The IS28B2 used as a trainer will prepare a pilot to fly any high
> performance flapped ship. I stepped out of one into a Nimbus 2C and felt
> right at home. We need another trainer like the Lark to reduce some of the
> accidents we see as pilots transition to performance glass.
>
> Bill Daniels
>

Ka7 and Bergfalke also seemed to be a bit similar for me.

/Janos

[Mark James Boyd]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>Janos Bauer wrote:
>> OscarCVox wrote:
>>
>>>> Were there any other gliders
>>>> that compare to the PW5 and the AC5?
>>
>>
>> std Cirrus, you still can find the manufacturer...
>> It's a bit tricky to fly it at the beginning (all flying tail) but
>> after 2-3 landings you will like it.
>
>Suggesting the Std Cirrus "compares" to the PW5 and the AC5 (probably
>meant the AC4 - AC5 is a motorglider) is a big stretch. I've flown all
>three, owned the Cirrus, and the "bit tricky" part extends well past the
>first 2-3 landinds! The other two are easier fly, and I would be safer
>for the "low time" pilot. Even then, there are noticeable differences
>between a PW5 and an AC4, such as landing speed.

I think this guy Jeff did hang gliding, so he's gonna
want to land out a lot, and thermal tight. AC-4c or
Sparrowhawk or Silent or the like sounds like it for him...
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

Bob Gibbons > wrote:
>
>However, for a personally owned sailplane, older wooden gliders are no
>more difficult to keep in good flying condition than any other
>sailplane

>given good care. and
>proper storage of the sailplane.

LOL. Under those conditions, a sailplane made of matchsticks
and toilet paper would fare just as well. Given good care and
proper storage, one can raise baby Bald Eagles too. Good luck.

Stay away from wooden gliders. You don't know if they've
had "good care" or "proper storage" in the past, and
this may be very hard to determine.

I'm reminded of the Citabrias guys with all the inspection
holes in their wings. It didn't matter if you kept
yours in a super dry hanger its whole life, and never flew it.
The wooden AD meant you had to cut holes in the
wings.

So it doesn't always matter how good YOU traet it either.
Stay away from wood. There's a reason it is uncommon
in current aircraft manufacturing.
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> Stay away from wooden gliders. You don't know if they've
> had "good care" or "proper storage" in the past, and
> this may be very hard to determine.

All aircraft can suffer from improper care and storage. That's why you
inspect them.
>
> I'm reminded of the Citabrias guys with all the inspection
> holes in their wings. It didn't matter if you kept
> yours in a super dry hanger its whole life, and never flew it.


We had a Citabria that neeeded inspection. As I recall, the AD wasn't
due to rot, but some Citabrias were found to have damaged spars.
Eventually, but after lots of Citabrias were inspected, it was found
that some (all?) of the original ones that started the AD were damaged
by things like blowing over and not having repairs done, or not logged.
I don't think it was primarily a wood issue in the end. We had to
replace some little nails.

> The wooden AD meant you had to cut holes in the
> wings.

Hey, it was just fabric. Easy to do, easy to fix. Try that with a metal
or fiberglass glider.

Wood doesn't fatigue like metal or fiberglass, but the metal fittings
can. These are easy to inspect. Regardless, you should have whatever you
buy inspected first by a person that knows the material and the aircraft.

>
> So it doesn't always matter how good YOU traet it either.
> Stay away from wood. There's a reason it is uncommon
> in current aircraft manufacturing.

It is a very expensive way to make aircraft in quantity is a big reason.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Tim Mara]

The next time someone sneers at a wooden sailplane, remind them that it is
made of a unidirectional reinforced laminated composite material consisting
of micro-tubular fibres embedded in a long chain polymer matrix and having a
near infinite fatigue life.
tim


> Stay away from wooden gliders. You don't know if they've
> had "good care" or "proper storage" in the past, and
> this may be very hard to determine.
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd

[John Giddy]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:46:18 -0700, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
>> Stay away from wooden gliders. You don't know if they've
>> had "good care" or "proper storage" in the past, and
>> this may be very hard to determine.
>
> All aircraft can suffer from improper care and storage. That's why you
> inspect them.
>>
>> I'm reminded of the Citabrias guys with all the inspection
>> holes in their wings. It didn't matter if you kept
>> yours in a super dry hanger its whole life, and never flew it.
>
>
> We had a Citabria that neeeded inspection. As I recall, the AD wasn't
> due to rot, but some Citabrias were found to have damaged spars.
> Eventually, but after lots of Citabrias were inspected, it was found
> that some (all?) of the original ones that started the AD were damaged
> by things like blowing over and not having repairs done, or not logged.
> I don't think it was primarily a wood issue in the end. We had to
> replace some little nails.
>
> > The wooden AD meant you had to cut holes in the
> > wings.
>
> Hey, it was just fabric. Easy to do, easy to fix. Try that with a metal
> or fiberglass glider.
>
> Wood doesn't fatigue like metal or fiberglass, but the metal fittings
> can. These are easy to inspect. Regardless, you should have whatever you
> buy inspected first by a person that knows the material and the aircraft.

AFAIK fibreglass doesn't suffer from fatigue either
In Australia there has been an ongoing fatigue test on a Janus wing,
with no detectable deterioration over many thousands of hours of
testing.
Cheers, John G.

[tango4]

IIRC a recent article in technical soaring suggested flying lifespans of
around 250 000 hours for the average plastic ship.

Ian

"John Giddy" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:46:18 -0700, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> > Mark James Boyd wrote:
> >
> >> Stay away from wooden gliders. You don't know if they've
> >> had "good care" or "proper storage" in the past, and
> >> this may be very hard to determine.
> >
> > All aircraft can suffer from improper care and storage. That's why you
> > inspect them.
> >>
> >> I'm reminded of the Citabrias guys with all the inspection
> >> holes in their wings. It didn't matter if you kept
> >> yours in a super dry hanger its whole life, and never flew it.
> >
> >
> > We had a Citabria that neeeded inspection. As I recall, the AD wasn't
> > due to rot, but some Citabrias were found to have damaged spars.
> > Eventually, but after lots of Citabrias were inspected, it was found
> > that some (all?) of the original ones that started the AD were damaged
> > by things like blowing over and not having repairs done, or not logged.
> > I don't think it was primarily a wood issue in the end. We had to
> > replace some little nails.
> >
> > > The wooden AD meant you had to cut holes in the
> > > wings.
> >
> > Hey, it was just fabric. Easy to do, easy to fix. Try that with a metal
> > or fiberglass glider.
> >
> > Wood doesn't fatigue like metal or fiberglass, but the metal fittings
> > can. These are easy to inspect. Regardless, you should have whatever you
> > buy inspected first by a person that knows the material and the
aircraft.
>
> AFAIK fibreglass doesn't suffer from fatigue either
> In Australia there has been an ongoing fatigue test on a Janus wing,
> with no detectable deterioration over many thousands of hours of
> testing.
> Cheers, John G.

[Bruce Greeff]

Tim Mara wrote:
> The next time someone sneers at a wooden sailplane, remind them that it is
> made of a unidirectional reinforced laminated composite material consisting
> of micro-tubular fibres embedded in a long chain polymer matrix and having a
> near infinite fatigue life.
> tim
>
>
>
>>Stay away from wooden gliders. You don't know if they've
>>had "good care" or "proper storage" in the past, and
>>this may be very hard to determine.
>>
>>------------+
>>Mark J. Boyd
>
>
>
>
And anyone who thinks they are not tough has not looked at the vintage
Bergfalkes and K13 grinding around the circuits all over the world. We have one
Bergie over 17,000 flights/9000 hours and going strong. Damage history is
extensive too - but easy to repair, and even poorly executed repairs from
previous lives have held up remarkably.

On a weak day they give a nice aerial view of the glass sitting on the runway...

[Gordon Schubert]

Jeff Runciman wrote in message news:...
> Thanks for all of the advise. I may have to get a
> glider in between 30 and 35 ld. I am concerned about
> getting in deeper than I should and not having fun.
> It is possible that I should get a club class glider
> due to my hang gliding experience (tighter turn radius?).
> A PW5 or Russia may be an answer. I will be spending
> sometime dual in a Lark. Two questions: What happened
> to Russia Sailplanes? Were there any other gliders
> that compare to the PW5 and the AC5?
>
> Thank you again for your help.
>
> Jeff


Jeff:

I had approx. 60 hours total gliding experience when
I bought my first glider, a Blanik L33 Solo. My hours
including time in a 2-33, 1-26 and a Lark.

The L33 was a nice 1st ship. Very easy to fly, no retractable
gear, L/D of 32.5/1 and it climbed pretty well. I was
able to tie it down because it was metal and the cockpit
was very large. I flew it for a year and sold it to
a club for their operations. My current glider is a
Genesis 2, which has a 43/1 L/D and retractable gear.
It is also easy to fly, but I think that if I had bought
it as a first glider it may have been too much for
me to handle.
GORDY

[Mark James Boyd]

Tim Mara > wrote:
>The next time someone sneers at a wooden sailplane, remind them that it is
>made of a unidirectional reinforced laminated composite material consisting
>of micro-tubular fibres embedded in a long chain polymer matrix and having a
>near infinite fatigue life.
>tim

LOL! Yep. And vulnerable to Isoptera. And dihyrogenoxate(?). Big names,
simple common problems. Make a glider for $30k with anything other than
modern materials that has the polar of a Sparrowhawk, and I'll be happy
to bow out.

Not sneering at wood. For those who know it well and can do
"proper care and storage," good for them. But wood just isn't a common
aircraft material anymore.
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mike Lindsay]

>
>So it doesn't always matter how good YOU traet it either.
>Stay away from wood. There's a reason it is uncommon
>in current aircraft manufacturing.
>--
>
>------------+
>Mark J. Boyd

One of the reasons is that wood changes dimensionally when the weather
changes. And if you take a wooden aircraft to a very dry location, the
dimensional change can cause all manner of structural problems.

Another reason for sailplanes is the high labour cost of cutting out and
gluing thousands of wooden bits. Not much less than the costs involved
in making a glass ship, which can be made with much better control of
wing profile and hence performance.
--
Mike Lindsay

[Robert Ehrlich]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> ...
> Stay away from wood. There's a reason it is uncommon
> in current aircraft manufacturing.
> ...

Maybe uncommon in the USA, in France the most common 4 seats
airplane is probably the Robin DR400 which is, at least for the
wings, made of wood and fabric. Also widely used as a tow plane.

[Tim Mara]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
Stay away from wood. There's a reason it is uncommon
in current aircraft manufacturing.

Yes there is......it's is more difficult to build compound shapes from wood,
more expensive to repeatedly make the same parts from wood when in composite
structures you simply need a mold, some cloth and a bucket of resin to
duplicate each part. Much of the same applies to metal aircraft and that's
why so many new designs, especially from smaller manufacturers choose
composites as well. That is not necessarily a reason to stay away from an
aircraft that was, already painstakingly constructed of wood, are still
airworthy and will be for years to come. You may even find many of your
recent composite aircraft STILL have some wood used in areas as the core for
some bulkheads etc...doesn't mean these should be condemned as well.
tim

[Bob2nd]

"you can trust a tree"--George Coder, in Soaring ad for Standard Austria, circa
1967

[Robertmudd1u]

> the Robin DR400 which is, at least for the
>wings, made of wood and fabric.

And very good woodwork it is. Interestingly tho the wheel panta are carbon
fiber! Go figure.

Robert Mudd
Oh, yes the full George coder quote is "Woods still good, you can trust a tree"

[Bob Korves]

I once saw this sign in a homebuilder's shop:

If God had meant for there to be fiberglass gliders he would have planted
fiberglass trees.

another sign in the same shop:

One test is worth one million expert opinions.

-Bob Korves

"Bob2nd" > wrote in message
...
> "you can trust a tree"--George Coder, in Soaring ad for Standard Austria,
circa
> 1967

[Stefan]

Bob Korves wrote:

> If God had meant for there to be fiberglass gliders he would have planted
> fiberglass trees.

If god had meant the trees to fly, he wouldn't have planted them to
earth... :-)

Stefan

[Nolaminar]

Fiberglass is fine. Christamss trees of glass last a long time.
Give me wood anytime.
GA

[Bruce Greeff]

Robertmudd1u wrote:
>>the Robin DR400 which is, at least for the
>>wings, made of wood and fabric.
>
>
> And very good woodwork it is. Interestingly tho the wheel panta are carbon
> fiber! Go figure.
>
> Robert Mudd
> Oh, yes the full George coder quote is "Woods still good, you can trust a tree"
>
Having helped to build one of those wings (for a Jodel 1050) I can attest to the
cost of manufacture. For one-off manufacture wood is fine - can even be
therapeutic to make something with your hands and simple tools. For economical
production, composite must win hands down.

[Robertmudd1u]

> For one-off manufacture wood is fine - can even be
>therapeutic to make something with your hands and simple tools. For
>economical
>production, composite must win hands down.

No argument there. However it is sometimes very diffacult for manufactuer to
switch technologies.

Robert Mudd

[Jens Peter]

Another wood related quote:

"Good wood, properly used, never fails"


ruce Greeff > wrote in message >...
> Robertmudd1u wrote:
> >>the Robin DR400 which is, at least for the
> >>wings, made of wood and fabric.
> >
> >
> > And very good woodwork it is. Interestingly tho the wheel panta are carbon
> > fiber! Go figure.
> >
> > Robert Mudd
> > Oh, yes the full George coder quote is "Woods still good, you can trust a tree"
> >
> Having helped to build one of those wings (for a Jodel 1050) I can attest to the
> cost of manufacture. For one-off manufacture wood is fine - can even be
> therapeutic to make something with your hands and simple tools. For economical
> production, composite must win hands down.

[Mark James Boyd]

Robert Ehrlich > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> ...
>> Stay away from wood. There's a reason it is uncommon
>> in current aircraft manufacturing.
>> ...
>
>Maybe uncommon in the USA, in France the most common 4 seats
>airplane is probably the Robin DR400 which is, at least for the
>wings, made of wood and fabric. Also widely used as a tow plane.

Oh, and keep in mind that this is just my opinion. I'm sure
there are lots of happy wood plane owners who love the things.
To each his own...


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Robert Ehrlich]

Robertmudd1u wrote:
>
> > the Robin DR400 which is, at least for the
> >wings, made of wood and fabric.
>
> And very good woodwork it is. Interestingly tho the wheel panta are carbon
> fiber! Go figure.
>

I think this comes from historical reasons. The DR400 is the last of a
family that started with the "Bébé Jodel", named from the beginning of
the names of its 2 conceptors, Joly and Delemontez, which was designed
for cheap amateur construction using a Volkwagen automotive engine. This
one had no wheel panta. The DR400 keeps something of this origin in its
name : D is for Delemontez and R for Robin. I think the basic structure
of the wing is still the same, although the size has changed.

[Robertmudd1u]

>I think this comes from historical reasons.

I understand this; wood wing carbon fiber wheel pants. It is just that at first
sight the mix is rather odd. High tech wheel pants and old fashion wing.

Robert

[OscarCVox]

>High tech wheel pants and old fashion wing.

In fact the wing is much more high tech than the planks that have historically
been strapped onto various Cessnas and Pipers
It is tapered and has washout in the tips such that they are not providing lift
(and thus drag) at cruising speeds. You thus find that their cruising speed is
higher for the same horsepower engines than most convential (for that read spam
can american) aircraft.
They are also very robust and we have decided to refurbish our 3 x DR400 tugs
rather than buy new ones as they do the job so well.
The only downside to wood and fabric is that they do not take kindly to being
kept outside in inclement weather.
Now if only we could fit a water cooled deisel and airbrakes we would have the
ideal tug
Nigel

[Mike Lindsay]

In article >, OscarCVox
> writes
>>High tech wheel pants and old fashion wing.
>
>In fact the wing is much more high tech than the planks that have historically
>been strapped onto various Cessnas and Pipers
>It is tapered and has washout in the tips such that they are not providing lift
>(and thus drag) at cruising speeds. You thus find that their cruising speed is
>higher for the same horsepower engines than most convential (for that read spam
>can american) aircraft.

And you can see out of them much better, too.
--
Mike Lindsay

[tango4]

Tip washout allows the tips to stall after the roots and keeps the ailerons
effective just a little longer too. You'll find washout in almost every
aircraft wing except things like purpose designed aerobatic aircraft.

Ian


"OscarCVox" > wrote in message
...
> >High tech wheel pants and old fashion wing.
>
> In fact the wing is much more high tech than the planks that have
> historically
> been strapped onto various Cessnas and Pipers
> It is tapered and has washout in the tips such that they are not providing
> lift
> (and thus drag) at cruising speeds. You thus find that their cruising
> speed is
> higher for the same horsepower engines than most convential (for that read
> spam
> can american) aircraft.
> They are also very robust and we have decided to refurbish our 3 x DR400
> tugs
> rather than buy new ones as they do the job so well.
> The only downside to wood and fabric is that they do not take kindly to
> being
> kept outside in inclement weather.
> Now if only we could fit a water cooled deisel and airbrakes we would have
> the
> ideal tug
> Nigel

[Eric Greenwell]

OscarCVox wrote:

>>High tech wheel pants and old fashion wing.
>
>
> In fact the wing is much more high tech than the planks that have historically
> been strapped onto various Cessnas and Pipers
> It is tapered and has washout in the tips such that they are not providing lift
> (and thus drag) at cruising speeds. You thus find that their cruising speed is
> higher for the same horsepower engines than most convential (for that read spam
> can american) aircraft.

Of course, they are still producing drag; after all, they are in the
airstream. What they are not doing, according to your description, is
any useful!

More likely, the wing tips are producing lift, though the designer might
have selected the twist to optimize the lift distribution at cruising
speed; that is, an elliptical distribution. Or, as Ian suggests, to
improve the handling qualities.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:41521d6c$1@darkstar...
> Robert Ehrlich > wrote:
> >Mark James Boyd wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Stay away from wood. There's a reason it is uncommon
> >> in current aircraft manufacturing.
> >> ...
> >
> >Maybe uncommon in the USA, in France the most common 4 seats
> >airplane is probably the Robin DR400 which is, at least for the
> >wings, made of wood and fabric. Also widely used as a tow plane.
>
> Oh, and keep in mind that this is just my opinion. I'm sure
> there are lots of happy wood plane owners who love the things.
> To each his own...
>
The wing's the thing. The Robin DR400 has an interesting planform and
effective flaps and good low speed performance for towing. All taper in the
wing begins at the dihedral break. I'm sure all following this thread have
checked out some images. If not, here are some.

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=Robin%20DR400&distinct_entry=true

One of my former UK clubs used Rollason Condors, a wood-fabric two-seat
towplane. http://www.100megsfree2.com/coughtrey/g-avxw.htm We had 100hp
and a 130hp versions. We didn't use the 100hp for two-seater launches, at
least with two up, or without headwind.

Another low-wing tow plane (metal) with good vis is the Socata Rallye,
usually 180hp but with 235hp option. Heavier, but still good for short
runways. Rode in and launched behind one of these in Aboyne.
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=Socata%20Rally e&distinct_entry=true

All have the low wing advantage without struts, multiple seats for
checkouts, and very good viz.

Don't know if this still holds true, but the UK also had a couple of other
reasonable (to me) rules. A pilot could become a tow pilot (in a club)
after 50 hours of PIC in power. A glider pilot couldn't carry PAX until 50
hours PIC in gliders.

Frank Whiteley

[Stefan]

F.L. Whiteley wrote:

> All have the low wing advantage without struts, multiple seats for
> checkouts, and very good viz.

And, not to forget, they have a true stick, not that ridiculous half-cut
steering wheel.

Stefan