Flaps/No flaps...practical difference??

[[email protected]]

For simple long pleasure flights in the western US or for the rare flights in the Alps would I notice any real PRACTICAL difference between a Discus 2c and other flapped 18m ships? I have NO interest in competition. Thanks

[JS[_5_]]

On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 3:21:23 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> For simple long pleasure flights in the western US or for the rare flights in the Alps would I notice any real PRACTICAL difference between a Discus 2c and other flapped 18m ships? I have NO interest in competition. Thanks

One consideration is what to do when a tow is too slow and not getting faster, particularly when full of water.
Pull in an extra notch of flaps, or...
Jim

[Dan Marotta]

You'll have something to do with your left hand.

On 8/12/2019 4:21 PM, wrote:
> For simple long pleasure flights in the western US or for the rare flights in the Alps would I notice any real PRACTICAL difference between a Discus 2c and other flapped 18m ships? I have NO interest in competition. Thanks

--
Dan, 5J

[Gary Wayland]

On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 6:21:23 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> For simple long pleasure flights in the western US or for the rare flights in the Alps would I notice any real PRACTICAL difference between a Discus 2c and other flapped 18m ships? I have NO interest in competition. Thanks

Well, on that pleasure flight, as he blows by you at 100 knots. When are we not in competition? And, the pilot has the same wingspan to do it...

Now, if you get a Libelle, you can out thermal them all!

"SQ"

[George Haeh]

Landing flaps in Schleicher ships give you a nice steep approach and aileron control once on the ground.

Negative flap helps with aileron control in the initial ground run on aerotow.

But each available flap setting gives you another opportunity to get it wrong.

Exceeding maximum speed for a given flap setting can make bad things happen. Pay attention to the white triangles on the airspeed.

[Brett]

[QUOTE=Brett;997703]I have about 500 hours in a D2C (18m). And a number of 18m flapped gliders since. The D2C is a beautiful sailplane to fly and very competitive. If you fly under 100kts it gives very little away to a V2cx.
I had no problems towing full of water or landing short. Very docile handling.
AND it will easily out-climb a Libelle.
I highly recommend it for your type of flying.

Brett

[[email protected][_1_]]

What George and JS said and in addition, landing speed and the angle of attack needed to lift off at high wing loadings.

[6PK]

Snip/paste: "AND it will easily out-climb a Libelle. "
I very much doubt that....!

[Gary Wayland]

On Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 2:43:09 AM UTC-4, Brett wrote:
> Brett;997703 Wrote:
> > I have about 500 hours in a D2C (18m). And a number of 18m flapped
> > gliders since. The D2C is a beautiful sailplane to fly and very
> > competitive. If you fly under 100kts it gives very little away to a
> > V2cx.
> > I had no problems towing full of water or landing short. Very docile
> > handling.
> > AND it will easily out-climb a Libelle.
> > I highly recommend it for your type of flying.
> >
> > Brett
>
>
>

>
> --
> Brett

Who was the slug in that Libelle? No one can out thermal a Libelle! lol


Just kidding... I have a sweet spot for the Libelle. My first Sailplane. 250 hours that first year. She was a fun machine... No plane in that era ever flew through that glider in a thermal...

For the money, based on the thermal aspects and pure fun, I can't think any other plane that matches it that was in standard class for its time. I'm biased, of course...

Gary
"SQ"
ASW27b

[Gary Wayland]

On Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 5:12:37 PM UTC-4, 6PK wrote:
> Snip/paste: "AND it will easily out-climb a Libelle. "
> I very much doubt that....!

Ok, we are friends! Viva la Libelle!

[[email protected]]

I transitioned from a flapped ship to an LS8-18. No regrets.
Unless you are flat out racing, the simplicity and predictability of a modern unflapped ship are wonderful to me. Only if going nose to nose at over 100 knots does this ship give anything up to a flapped ship.

[Brett]

Snip/paste: "AND it will easily out-climb a Libelle. "
I very much doubt that....!

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I'm not bashing the Libelle (it was a masterpiece of it's era) but you are obviously a member of the Flat Earth Society.

[6PK]

I don't think so...
The Libelle in the right hands will keep up if not out climb anything in it's class....period.
BTW presently I fly a DG but I did own a 201once...

[[email protected]]

The world isn’t flat???

[Mike the Strike]

The Discus 2 is the sweetest flying ship. You won’t miss flaps. I transitioned from a Discus 2b to a Ventus 2bx but preferred the overall feel and handling of the Discus. I really only found the benefit of flaps on the odd slow tow.

Mike

[Gary Wayland]

On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 6:21:23 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> For simple long pleasure flights in the western US or for the rare flights in the Alps would I notice any real PRACTICAL difference between a Discus 2c and other flapped 18m ships? I have NO interest in competition. Thanks

OK, Victor,

After all the top posts here, what is going to be your pleasure, Flap, or no flap?

The only glider I refuse to get into; A 2-33! I think Schweizer hated instructors. That is why the back of one is built to fit a pretzel...

[[email protected]]

Looking like “no flap” for sure. Lots of great responses. Appreciate them all. Words like “simple”, “predictable “ and “sweet handling” are what I hoped to hear.

[JS[_5_]]

On Wednesday, August 14, 2019 at 3:03:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Looking like “no flap” for sure. Lots of great responses. Appreciate them all. Words like “simple”, “predictable “ and “sweet handling” are what I hoped to hear.

[[email protected]]

No, not looking at the Libelle. I know they’re well loved but I’ve never flown one. Looking for a new ship to avoid ownership hassles over the next 15-20 yrs that I plan to fly.

[Gary Wayland]

On Wednesday, August 14, 2019, at 6:41:24 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> No, not looking at the Libelle. I know they’re well-loved, but I’ve never flown one. Looking for a new ship to avoid ownership hassles over the next 15-20 yrs that I plan to fly.

So, its flaps?

I've had my ASW27b since 1999. I bought it when the Mark was still trading. Comfortable glider to haul on the ground, easy to put together. Light wings. And as I get older, those 18Meter gliders are looking heavy if you put it in the box after each flight. I'm happy on the ground as I put it together, content in the air.

Don't discount this glider for the new toys of 18M if you're looking for sure pleasure flying with no competition in your future. But, in sports class, you might even beat a Libelle on a good day!

Good luck in your search.

Gary

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

JS wrote on 8/14/2019 3:27 PM:
> On Wednesday, August 14, 2019 at 3:03:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>> Looking like “no flap” for sure. Lots of great responses. Appreciate them all. Words like “simple”, “predictable “ and “sweet handling” are what I hoped to hear.
>
> Are you going for the H201 Libelle, still one of the top gliders in all those categories?
> Kempton did a 1000km triangle in his 201B out of Tonopah, a western US (from OP) site.
> Jim
>
The newer gliders have far better crash protection than a Libelle. Much as I liked
my H301 Libelle in the '80s, I would not fly one now. Go for the newer ones.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[Ventus_a]

I don't think so...
The Libelle in the right hands will keep up if not out climb anything in it's class....period.
BTW presently I fly a DG but I did own a 201once...

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "in the right hands". My first glider was a share in a Cobra 15 (SZD 36A)and I was never out climbed by any early glass including Libelles and ASW 15s

I was only 18 when I owned it, and to be honest was not up against the best pilots out there, but it's more about the loose nut behind the wheel (stick)

Oh yeah, not to forget the reason for this thread. I like flaps and in recent years my rides have been a Ventus a and a Nimbus 3D. I would have no problem having something without flaps especially something as cool as a D2c. The sheer joy of being airborne doing my best to be making like a bird doesn't depend on flaps or span

:-) Colin

[Ventus_a]

For simple long pleasure flights in the western US or for the rare flights in the Alps would I notice any real PRACTICAL difference between a Discus 2c and other flapped 18m ships? I have NO interest in competition. Thanks

"I have about 500 hours in a D2C (18m). And a number of 18m flapped gliders since. The D2C is a beautiful sailplane to fly and very competitive. If you fly under 100kts it gives very little away to a V2cx.
I had no problems towing full of water or landing short. Very docile handling.
AND it will easily out-climb a Libelle.
I highly recommend it for your type of flying.

Brett

Brett has flown national comps in Omarama NZ in his D2c when he had it and was very competitive in 18m flying wave tasks, winning a day here and there.

He's now flying a JS3 via a JS1 and has been to the worlds. I respect his opinion and my own experience of flying against the D2c in my Ventus a and Nimbus 3D leaves me in no doubt that it would deliver in the circumstances you describe

:-) Colin

[xcnick]

JS has a point about towing without flaps. The common call is to tell the tow pilot you are full of water. If you are the only standard glider on the field and the tow pilot has a flapped ship, you find yourself mushing off the runway. Give a speed for the tow pilot. (still picking crap out of my shorts.)

[Delta8]

If cross country flight is a part of your plans I don't understand why landing off field would not be a large part of the flaps/no flaps decision?

Using flaps can get you into a field safely vs overshooting. I can touchdown and stop without brakes on a grass strip (tail skid ) in 450' with an ASW 20a max positive flap setting . The stall speed is down to 36kts so even if I hit something it will be a considerably slower speed .

[xcnick]

Dry the stall speeds are the same, Discus 36kts, so I don't really understand what the extra workload buys you here.

I was talking about stall speed wet.

On Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 5:43:09 PM UTC-7, Delta8 wrote:
The stall speed is down to > 36kts so even if I hit something it will be a considerably slower speed

[Joel Flamenbaum[_2_]]

On Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 5:43:09 PM UTC-7, Delta8 wrote:
> If cross country flight is a part of your plans I don't understand why
> landing off field would not be a large part of the flaps/no flaps
> decision?
>
> Using flaps can get you into a field safely vs overshooting. I can
> touchdown and stop without brakes on a grass strip (tail skid ) in 450'
> with an ASW 20a max positive flap setting . The stall speed is down to
> 36kts so even if I hit something it will be a considerably slower speed
>
>
> Many Moons ago flying in a contest out of Fairfield, PA, flying an ASW20a- My only option at the time was a college soccer field. I flew one 360 to scope it out. With full flaps and judicial use of dive breaks the 20 comes down like a helicopter. I chose the diagonal and was stopped with room to spare.
>
>
> --
> Delta8

[krasw]

Having flown a lot both ASW20 and D2, I would not try to land one glider in a place I would not land the other as well.

[Mike the Strike]

On Friday, August 16, 2019 at 9:24:25 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote:
> Having flown a lot both ASW20 and D2, I would not try to land one glider in a place I would not land the other as well.

Ditto - ASW20, Discus 2 and Ventus 2bx experience under my belt. I have never felt there was a place I could land one of the flapped ships and not the D2.

(although the "Jesus" flap setting of the earlier ASW 20s was interesting!)

Mike

[Delta8]

(although the "Jesus" flap setting of the earlier ASW 20s was interesting!)

Mike

I used them every flight . My trailer is halfway down a 2000' strip and not wanting use a tow vehicle more than necessary . Spoilers in at 40' and flare at 20' seems to work well. The angle of descent is 4 to 1 .
I see why they did away with that position in later models , if you decide to move up a setting below 200' between any wind gradient and higher stall speed you're in trouble .

[BobW]

>> Having flown a lot both ASW20 and D2, I would not try to land one glider
>> in a place I would not land the other as well.
>
> Ditto - ASW20, Discus 2 and Ventus 2bx experience under my belt. I have
> never felt there was a place I could land one of the flapped ships and not
> the D2.
>
> (although the "Jesus" flap setting of the earlier ASW 20s was
> interesting!)

Captain Obvious here (maybe)...

There's a world of difference between 'mere' camber-changing flaps (with or
without a 'landing' position) and large-deflection landing-flaps in terms of
steepest-glide-angle at approach-speed, and reduced (compared to unflapped
ships of equal span) stall speed, everything else being equal (which of course
it ain't). The devil's in the details.

Yeah, likely the main benefit of stalling-speed-reduction occurs somewhere
around (say) 30-ish degrees of flap deflection, beyond which the remaining
aerodynamic effect is pretty much additional drag, and yeah, manufacturers of
'flapped ships (w/o large deflection capability)' almost certainly optimize
such designs (and their landing spoilers) so that the *primary* purpose of the
flaps is to maximize soaring-performance-range for some design-targeted span
(and not maximize short-field capability), and hence ==> when considering
*these* sorts of flapped designs <== there's arguably little
landing-capability difference between flapped and unflapped ships.

But to suppose that's true for *all* flapped designs (i.e. those w.
large-deflection landing flaps, e.g. some early versions of ASW 20s, pre-D
versions of PIK-20s, and a few, semi-rare (even in the U.S.; likely even more
rare in EASA-land) U.S. designs (Nugget, SGS 1-35, Zuni, many older HPs,
etc.)), is incorrect. Depending on the ship, *seriously* incorrect.

Most U.S. pilots w. 1-26 experience would likely agree no other glider would
be their first choice for landing in a small/approach-obstructed field. I
would, too, but for the HP-14 I flew for several hundred hours, more or less
immediately after my 1-26 time. The Zuni in which I have most of my
flapped-ship time, not so much, though its actual touchdown speed is (thanks
to its flaps) lower than all other 15-meter span glass ships with which I have
observational experience since ~1980.

Reiterating...the devil is in the details in the case of 'flaps.' All flaps
aren't the same - not by a long stretch. I chose large-deflection
landing-flapped ships for all my single-seaters, post-1-26, exactly for this
reason...and continue to believe they're something of a 'lost religious war'
in soaring-land.

Point being, anyone seriously claiming 'there's no practical difference in
landing capability' between flapped and unflapped gliders is either genuinely
ignorant, or 'discussionally choosing' to ignore the very real additional
landing-capabilities associated with large-deflection landing-flaps.

YMMV,
Bob - Cap't. Obvious - W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Dave Nadler]

On Friday, August 16, 2019 at 6:07:44 PM UTC-4, BobW wrote:
> Captain Obvious here (maybe)...
>
> There's a world of difference between 'mere' camber-changing flaps (with or
> without a 'landing' position) and large-deflection landing-flaps in terms of
> steepest-glide-angle at approach-speed, and reduced (compared to unflapped
> ships of equal span) stall speed, everything else being equal (which of course
> it ain't). The devil's in the details.
>
> Yeah, likely the main benefit of stalling-speed-reduction occurs somewhere
> around (say) 30-ish degrees of flap deflection, beyond which the remaining
> aerodynamic effect is pretty much additional drag, and yeah, manufacturers of
> 'flapped ships (w/o large deflection capability)' almost certainly optimize
> such designs (and their landing spoilers) so that the *primary* purpose of the
> flaps is to maximize soaring-performance-range for some design-targeted span
> (and not maximize short-field capability), and hence ==> when considering
> *these* sorts of flapped designs <== there's arguably little
> landing-capability difference between flapped and unflapped ships.
>
> But to suppose that's true for *all* flapped designs (i.e. those w.
> large-deflection landing flaps, e.g. some early versions of ASW 20s, pre-D
> versions of PIK-20s, and a few, semi-rare (even in the U.S.; likely even more
> rare in EASA-land) U.S. designs (Nugget, SGS 1-35, Zuni, many older HPs,
> etc.)), is incorrect. Depending on the ship, *seriously* incorrect.
>
> Most U.S. pilots w. 1-26 experience would likely agree no other glider would
> be their first choice for landing in a small/approach-obstructed field. I
> would, too, but for the HP-14 I flew for several hundred hours, more or less
> immediately after my 1-26 time. The Zuni in which I have most of my
> flapped-ship time, not so much, though its actual touchdown speed is (thanks
> to its flaps) lower than all other 15-meter span glass ships with which I have
> observational experience since ~1980.
>
> Reiterating...the devil is in the details in the case of 'flaps.' All flaps
> aren't the same - not by a long stretch. I chose large-deflection
> landing-flapped ships for all my single-seaters, post-1-26, exactly for this
> reason...and continue to believe they're something of a 'lost religious war'
> in soaring-land.

I've got an RHJ-8 looking for a home, flaps not quite as effective as HP-14
but quite frightening to passengers unused to such a treat of a landing...

[BobW]

On 8/16/2019 6:59 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Friday, August 16, 2019 at 6:07:44 PM UTC-4, BobW wrote:
>> Captain Obvious here (maybe)...
>>
>> There's a world of difference between 'mere' camber-changing flaps (with
>> or without a 'landing' position) and large-deflection landing-flaps in
>> terms of steepest-glide-angle at approach-speed, and reduced (compared to
>> unflapped ships of equal span) stall speed, everything else being equal
>> (which of course it ain't). The devil's in the details.
>>
<Snip...>

>>
>> Most U.S. pilots w. 1-26 experience would likely agree no other glider
>> would be their first choice for landing in a small/approach-obstructed
>> field. I would, too, but for the HP-14 I flew for several hundred hours,
>> more or less immediately after my 1-26 time...

>> Reiterating...the devil is in the details in the case of 'flaps.' All
>> flaps aren't the same - not by a long stretch. I chose large-deflection
>> landing-flapped ships for all my single-seaters, post-1-26, exactly for
>> this reason...and continue to believe they're something of a 'lost
>> religious war' in soaring-land.
>
> I've got an RHJ-8 looking for a home, flaps not quite as effective as
> HP-14 but quite frightening to passengers unused to such a treat of a
> landing...

Oh man..born 40 years too soon, I was! I lusted after this ship (and its two
siblings) ever since I learned of 'em. May yours find a(nother) good home!

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Having landed a 1-26 in a place local hang glider pilots said was that unlandable (one HG pilot showed up at our field, having his kidlets learn, he mentioned, I stated as fact since I was the 1-26 pilot involved), yes a ASW-20a in "full dump it mode" (landing flap, full brakes) has a L/D of a homesick brick.....
Good planning allows a lot of glass ships into small places....what do you practice?
A 20-a can go into very small spots, a 20-c needs a bit more.
VERY sharp in a no -flapped ship......sorry, not the same....

General flying, nut behind the stick is likely 85% of the equation, forget flaps unless high speed or short off field.

[Al McNamara[_4_]]

Trying to get back to your original question, while it is important to
remember that there are considerable differences between different gliders
(and generations of glider) some of the practical differences that you
might encounter include:

(1) Increased workload on the ground run (some flapped gliders need a
change from negative to positive flaps to prevent a wing dropping)

(2) Easier unstick once in a positive flap setting. Only really a factor
if launching from a short airfield or behind a low power tug.

(3) Lower thermaling speeds, particularly when heavy (so generally better
climb rates)

(4) Reduced roll control in positive flap settings, particularly in older
designs. This can be a factor when manoeuvring in a busy thermal and/or
lower down. In my experience not a major factor in more modern types

(4) Higher workload in flight (you need to consider what flap setting you
need)

(5) Steeper approach attitude, so better visibility and potential to land
shorter (very type specific)

(6) Increased workload on the landing run (some, particular older, flapped
gliders need a move to negative flap on the ground run to maintain roll
control

Some are positive, some negative, but if used properly, you will definitely
get a performance benefit on most cross country days, provided you get the
flap settings right. The price of the performance increase is a higher
workload. In my view, whether this trade off is worthwhile is sometimes as
much about you and your capacity/experience as the other factors.

[krasw]

On Saturday, 17 August 2019 01:07:44 UTC+3, BobW wrote:
>
> Point being, anyone seriously claiming 'there's no practical difference in
> landing capability' between flapped and unflapped gliders is either genuinely
> ignorant, or 'discussionally choosing' to ignore the very real additional
> landing-capabilities associated with large-deflection landing-flaps.
>
> YMMV,
> Bob - Cap't. Obvious - W.
>

Sure, if you totally botch landing circuit and approach way too high and fast, '20 flaps will get you down sooner than D2 airbrakes. But if you get into this situation, glider you need is ASK21 with flight instructor.

[BobW]

On 8/18/2019 2:30 AM, krasw wrote:
> On Saturday, 17 August 2019 01:07:44 UTC+3, BobW wrote:
>>
>> Point being, anyone seriously claiming 'there's no practical difference
>> in landing capability' between flapped and unflapped gliders is either
>> genuinely ignorant, or 'discussionally choosing' to ignore the very real
>> additional landing-capabilities associated with large-deflection
>> landing-flaps.
>>
>> YMMV, Bob - Cap't. Obvious - W.
>>
>
> Sure, if you totally botch landing circuit and approach way too high and
> fast, '20 flaps will get you down sooner than D2 airbrakes. But if you get
> into this situation, glider you need is ASK21 with flight instructor.

Continuing (I think) a slow drift from the original poster's question...

I guess I don't understand the point you seem to me to be supporting. When I
imagine the "50%-extended glidepath" height-vs.horizontal distance diagram, at
normal approach speed, of (say) an ASW-20 (w. 65-degree flap capability) and a
D2, it strongly suggests to me that the former ship will have a greater number
of theoretically available fields from which to safely choose, independent of
anything else...pilot skill, trees, wind shears, etc. It will also be capable
of actually touching down with less energy to dissipate.

I'm not bashing flapless gliders; simply trying to make the point that
gliders' *usable* landing capabilities, differ...with real-world practical
effects. I'm OK with agreeing to disagree. :)

Anecdotally speaking, my habit/landing-preference with large-deflection
landing-flap-equipped gliders is to fly landing patterns where the terminal
portion of the approach employs full flap deflection, because: it's fun, not
fundamentally difficult, *and* it's useful prep for outlanding in
approach-obstructed/short fields, and in that sense no different than choosing
to consistently fly/practice full-spoiler-opening approaches in spoiler-only
ships. To each their own...

YMMV.

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Sorta my point on a -20A.....get current in the spring, then do a local pattern "way high" full flaps, full dive brakes, roll the nose over....sheesh....
I have shoveled into small fields from a 1-26 and up.....sorta hard to beat a -20A in a very small field.
Yes, I have -24 and -28 off airport landings.
Circuit may not be the issue, crappy fields (yes, you didn't call it quits soon enough...) may NEED max decent rate.
Sorry, standard class would have a hard time compared to many flapped ships.
YMMV...

BTW, I "believe" while testing the -20A, pilot was on final at 1000' above landing spot....Hang everything out, roll nose beyond vertical, land on spot......no turns..,,didn't exceed any speed......try that in a non flapped ship.
No, I don't believe the -20B or C could do that.
I did once a year for practice since it may loosen bottom wing/flap seals.....so....a test....

[Bob Youngblood]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 12:02:57 PM UTC-4, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> Sorta my point on a -20A.....get current in the spring, then do a local pattern "way high" full flaps, full dive brakes, roll the nose over....sheesh....
> I have shoveled into small fields from a 1-26 and up.....sorta hard to beat a -20A in a very small field.
> Yes, I have -24 and -28 off airport landings.
> Circuit may not be the issue, crappy fields (yes, you didn't call it quits soon enough...) may NEED max decent rate.
> Sorry, standard class would have a hard time compared to many flapped ships.
> YMMV...
>
> BTW, I "believe" while testing the -20A, pilot was on final at 1000' above landing spot....Hang everything out, roll nose beyond vertical, land on spot......no turns..,,didn't exceed any speed......try that in a non flapped ship.
> No, I don't believe the -20B or C could do that.
> I did once a year for practice since it may loosen bottom wing/flap seals......so....a test....

I owned a 20L model that had that same flap configuration. There was never any doubt about putting that thing down in some very difficult places. Alfonso, E9, and I would see just how short we could land. The bird was the best flying ship that I have ever owned. I wish my 27B had that same configuration.

[2G]

On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 3:21:23 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> For simple long pleasure flights in the western US or for the rare flights in the Alps would I notice any real PRACTICAL difference between a Discus 2c and other flapped 18m ships? I have NO interest in competition. Thanks

Yes, there ARE practical difference between a Discus 2C and, say, an ASW29-18, and not just a little, a lot. I recommend that you search OLC and find flights where these two gliders are flown head-to-head. I have personally flown an ASH26e against a 29 and they left me in the dust.

BTW, "pleasure" means "not landing out."

Tom

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 3:21:23 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> For simple long pleasure flights in the western US or for the rare flights in the Alps would I notice any real PRACTICAL difference between a Discus 2c and other flapped 18m ships? I have NO interest in competition. Thanks

I'm not sure if you are in the western US or in the Alps. If it's the western US you will be dealing with high density altitudes (i.e high true airspeed) and "inconsistent" landout environments where energy management might be critical. For this reason I switched from Standard to 15M class when I bought a new glider in 2003 - an ASW-27B. I have no regrets. Even if you don't fly contests you might give thought to what classes might still exist in the future should you ever want to sell - if resale value matters to you.

Also, when conditions are strong your long pleasure flights will be longer (and therefore more pleasurable) if you can suck the flaps up in cruise.

Andy Blackburn
9B