First Glider - No Gelcoat

[Waduino]

Yes I've read lots of posts about buying a first glider. My heart is set on
an LS-4 since I'd like to stay in the roughly $30K US price range with a
decent panel and trailer.

BUT, what if I just don't want gelcoat because sooner or later it will have
to be refinished and that doesn't make any sense economically. Then what
would you recommend? I'd rather buy something I could fly for a few years
and not outgrow too quickly and that has a ready market for resale should I
decide to move up the food chain. BTW I fly in light conditions, southern
Ontario, Canada.

Thanks.
Wad.

[Jack]

Waduino wrote:
> Yes I've read lots of posts about buying a first glider. My heart is set on
> an LS-4 since I'd like to stay in the roughly $30K US price range with a
> decent panel and trailer.
>
> BUT, what if I just don't want gelcoat because sooner or later it will have
> to be refinished and that doesn't make any sense economically. Then what
> would you recommend? I'd rather buy something I could fly for a few years
> and not outgrow too quickly and that has a ready market for resale should I
> decide to move up the food chain. BTW I fly in light conditions, southern
> Ontario, Canada.

How about an SGS 1-34?


Jack

[mike]

PIK 20 has LS4 performance and was manufactured without gelcoat. They
currently seem to be selling for $15-18K US.

[Bob Johnson]

Waduino wrote:
> Yes I've read lots of posts about buying a first glider. My heart is set on
> an LS-4 since I'd like to stay in the roughly $30K US price range with a
> decent panel and trailer.
>
> BUT, what if I just don't want gelcoat because sooner or later it will have
> to be refinished and that doesn't make any sense economically. Then what
> would you recommend? I'd rather buy something I could fly for a few years
> and not outgrow too quickly and that has a ready market for resale should I
> decide to move up the food chain. BTW I fly in light conditions, southern
> Ontario, Canada.
>
> Thanks.
> Wad.
>
>
>
Why would it have to be refinished? Are there any data on the before and
after flying qualities before and after a 10K (or more) paint job? You
may be cryin' before you're hurt 8>)

BTW, I had mine done -- looks nice!

Bob Johnson

[Tim Mara]

a PIK20 is not an LS4 or an "__your choice___"......! L/D numbers also are
only that....and not a good comparison of performance or value....all too
many glider buyers use L/D figures which are often very optimistic or
misleading and test reports that have in them their own errors as the basis
for buyer considerations...
The PIK is IMHO an OK glider.but...........again IMHO OK only.....the early
Wortman wing did perform well enough in the day to be copied and used on a
number of other gliders contemporary of the time......it also doesn't like
water drops, dirt or bug.....the PIK is relatively heavy due to the early
construction techniques and would be by today's standard be considered
"sloppily" built...it also is a 15M flapped glider and aside from D/E models
is flaps only..so on a budget it's a fair flyer.but let's not simply use L/D
to convert to value $....
As for the Paint /Gel Coat question.......you really need to look at the
issues with both.....I have not seen 20-30 year old gliders with painted
surfaces that are superior to gel coated surfaces.providing the Gelcoat was
a good quality and properly prepared.Old gliders are old gliders.if they are
not cared for they are ratty old gliders that too need to be
refinished.....be it paint, dope or gelcoat.......and the cost to do any is
still high.
IMHO you look for the best glider you can afford, and afford to keep, one
that not only has L/D but has other redeeming factors and one you will own
and love to own....and whatever your budget is.....add an extra 10-15K to it
:o)
tim
Wings & Wheels
www.wingsandwheels.com

"mike" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> PIK 20 has LS4 performance and was manufactured without gelcoat. They
> currently seem to be selling for $15-18K US.
>

[TTaylor at cc.usu.edu]

Take a look at the Std. Jantars, about $18-20K with numbers close to an
LS-4. While not an LS-4, the cost and lack of refinish issues make it
a great ship for the $. Robust and designed for x-c learning as well
as good enough for long flights.

[[email protected]]

Your first glider should be one that you can fly safely, enjoy flying
it, learn from it and from its handling. The finish of the glider is
important, but there are many other even more important issues. Jantar
Std. is good, solid, built like a tank glider, but it is not for a
beginner pilot. The same applies to the PIK gliders. The LS-4 could
also be handfull if flown by a pilot with limited experience. And that
is true with any composite glider. It is not a simple problem and
advises like that, even though they ment well, can be frustrating. I
would suggest that you fly several different gliders, don't rush to buy
one, but rather fly what is available for rent for at least a full
season and then make your decision.

Sincerely,

Jacek Kobiesa
Washington State

[HL Falbaum]

I will second what has been said here and add this--
With older gliders, condition is everything and trailer condition is more
important than anything else. If it's a pain to rig, you will be less
inclined to fly on margial days. Ergonomics matter a lot too. Some of us are
not built for a Jantar. Tall, slender with long arms and you're fine. Any
glass ship will bite you if you are not well trained. Serious drill in a
glass twoplace with an instructor is required. The insidious part is that
they seem so docile up to a point.
So general condition, ease of rigging and comfort for long flight is the
key. You need to learn how to sand gelcoat anyway. Then it needs to be kept
sealed from moisture and UV and it will stay stable a long time.
A L33 Solo might fill the bill for you, and a 1-34 will certaily do the job
nicely (except for the trailer part).
--
Hartley Falbaum
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Your first glider should be one that you can fly safely, enjoy flying
> it, learn from it and from its handling. The finish of the glider is
> important, but there are many other even more important issues. Jantar
> Std. is good, solid, built like a tank glider, but it is not for a
> beginner pilot. The same applies to the PIK gliders. The LS-4 could
> also be handfull if flown by a pilot with limited experience. And that
> is true with any composite glider. It is not a simple problem and
> advises like that, even though they ment well, can be frustrating. I
> would suggest that you fly several different gliders, don't rush to buy
> one, but rather fly what is available for rent for at least a full
> season and then make your decision.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jacek Kobiesa
> Washington State
>

[Shawn]

wrote:
> Your first glider should be one that you can fly safely, enjoy flying
> it, learn from it and from its handling. The finish of the glider is
> important, but there are many other even more important issues. Jantar
> Std. is good, solid, built like a tank glider, but it is not for a
> beginner pilot. The same applies to the PIK gliders. The LS-4 could
> also be handfull if flown by a pilot with limited experience. And that
> is true with any composite glider. It is not a simple problem and
> advises like that, even though they ment well, can be frustrating. I
> would suggest that you fly several different gliders, don't rush to buy
> one, but rather fly what is available for rent for at least a full
> season and then make your decision.

I agree with most of your advice, However, the OP didn't say he was
inexperienced in glass, just that he's buying his first ship. My first
glider was a Ventus, but I had significant time in glass gliders.
How is an LS-4 a handful? I suppose if you've only been in 2-33s or
Blaniks, but I hear it's about as docile as a glider gets.

Shawn

[Stewart Kissel]

An LS4 is an excellent choice...as long as you are
having no problems flying a Duo or DG1000, or Grob
103 for that matter.

Plenty of pilots enjoy flying their sailplanes with
cracks in the gelcoat...if you are the type to dweeb
on the ground checking out instrument panels and wing
finishes, then it might be of concern. Otherwise join
the rest of us with 20 year old original finishes on
our birds.

But I cannot agree more with the post about trailers
and ease of rigging...because if you hate assembly
then you will fly less. And look real hard at a one-man
rigger, they really are worth every penny.

[TTaylor at cc.usu.edu]

Jacek,

Wad. didn't say he was a beginner pilot, only he was looking for:
1. A first ship
2. One without gel coat
3. Would work while he is learning cross-country and be able to grow
with him as he got better

I still think the Jantar Standard meets all those criteria. My first
ship was a Std. Cirrus. If I listened to all the pundits I should have
been killed because they are so hard to fly. What I found was it was
one of the nicest ships around for a first glass and I flew my first
cross countries to my diamond distance flights in the ship. Any new
ship should be approached with caution and a plan should be established
to allow time to learn to fly the ship in low stress environments
before taking one cross country.

I have seen very few areas where a Std Jantar would be difficult for a
relatively competent low time pilot. Any pilot at that stage should be
working with a good instructor that knows the capability of the student
to handle new situation and their rate of learning. The only phase of
flight that is different for the Std. Jantar is take-off due to the
high angle of attack. This does not take long to learn and with use of
spoilers minimizes the issue.

If the student is competent and a reasonable learner they will out grow
the L-33, SGS 1-34 and other similar ships very quickly. Why waste
their time going through two or more ships. I usually recommend a
minimum of 25 hours and 10 flights in a new ship for a low time pilot
before they consider going cross country. The 25 hours will make sure
they have thermalled enough to know what the stall characteristics are
and how the plane will react prior to stall.

They should also have an instructor or coach evaluating their readiness
to progress to the next level.

I am 5' 9" and fit in a Std. Jantar just fine.

All glass ships as well as all gliders must be approached with caution
and respect, but most pilots interested in going cross country that
have time in a glass trainer will have little trouble transitioning to
most of the standard class ships. I don't think the transition is
that difficult due to the ship as much as the change in performance
from most trainers. That is where a good training plan is needed to
allow the pilot to stay ahead of the ship. I have over 500 hours each
in a Std. Cirrus and a Nimbus 2M as well as a hundred this last year in
a Ventus B. They all are supposed to be somewhat difficult to fly, but
I have enjoyed them all and learned a great deal about soaring from
each one.

Tim

[Andreas Maurer]

On 9 Feb 2006 11:06:21 -0800, wrote:

> The LS-4 could
>also be handfull if flown by a pilot with limited experience.

Hmmm... Have you ever flown one? ;)
Usually today LS-4's ad similar gliders are being flown safely by
student pilots with 40 total hours.

Contrary to common believe, all German Standard Class gliders since
the era of LS-4 and DG-300 are contenders for the price for most
docile glider ever.





Bye
Andreas

[[email protected]]

If the gelcoat doesn't look to good, just sand it a little.

Repeat every few years.

Eventually, you will have no gelcoat, and nothing to worry about.

[Eric Greenwell]

TTaylor at cc.usu.edu wrote:
> I still think the Jantar Standard meets all those criteria. My first
> ship was a Std. Cirrus. If I listened to all the pundits I should have
> been killed because they are so hard to fly. What I found was it was
> one of the nicest ships around for a first glass and I flew my first
> cross countries to my diamond distance flights in the ship.

As the former owner of a Std Cirrus that I enjoyed for two years and 300
hours, I have to respectfully disagree with Tim's assessment of the Std
Cirrus. The Std Cirrus has poor spoilers, the early models had spun
easily, the all-flying tail is a handful over 80 mph (literally - two
hands on the stick), the wheel brake is pathetic, and the crash
protection is minimal (as were all gliders of the era). Nowadays, there
are MUCH better choices. I would much rather see any pilot in an LS4 (or
later design), and especially a low time pilot.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

www.motorglider.org

[TTaylor at cc.usu.edu]

Eric,

I was not advocating that he buy a Std. Cirrus, only pointing out that
I found it a good ship in spite of all the nay sayers that will tell
you how bad any older ship is. I feel the Std. Jantar is a good ship
for a newer pilot, the LS-4 of course is nearly the gold standard in
terms of an 80's vintage gliders. Anything newer will for the most
part have similar handling.

I still love the Std. Cirrus in spite of all the points you make about
it. I flew serial number 17, George Moffat's original Std. Cirrus
that was supposed to stall so badly. I never found it to be a problem
or concern. I could hang it on the tail and out climb almost any other
ship. And yes we Cirri pilots did learn how to slip on final.

If you want fun with a stall, try spinning the Nimbus 2 while trying to
take a turn point picture with the old cameras. That will get your
attention in a hurry.

Tim

[Eric Greenwell]

TTaylor at cc.usu.edu wrote:
> Eric,
>
> I was not advocating that he buy a Std. Cirrus, only pointing out that
> I found it a good ship in spite of all the nay sayers that will tell
> you how bad any older ship is.

I'm sure you enjoyed ship (I enjoyed mine when I had it, but I wouldn't
fly one now, even though I have thousands more hours), but any one of
the things I mentioned take it out of the "good ship" category, in my
opinion. It's not that these things can't be compensated for by pilot
training, experience, and some modifications in the case of the wheel
brake, it's that these attributes don't need to be tolerated any more by
someone that wants a "good" glider. Further, there is no cure for the
poor crashworthiness, and (again, in my opinion) a glider should be much
better than the early 70's era gliders in this regard to get a "good"
rating these days.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

www.motorglider.org

[Frank Whiteley]

Interesting comment made at the SSA Convention Focus on Clubs track.

Generally stated 'We train in G-103's. Yes, it may take longer to solo
than a 2-33, but you will be solo sooner in the G-103 by training in
it, rather than training to soloe in the 2-33 and then transitioning to
the G-103.'

It follows then that you will also likely be solo sooner in the G-102
or LS-4 or ASW-19 or Jantar Std or whatever follows the G-103. The
objective is to dream, and seek opportunities to make that dream the
reality. You might be surprised at what's achieveable when you get rid
of some of the hurdles.

Frank Whiteley

[Bruce Hoult]

In article . com>,
"Frank Whiteley" > wrote:

> Interesting comment made at the SSA Convention Focus on Clubs track.
>
> Generally stated 'We train in G-103's. Yes, it may take longer to solo
> than a 2-33, but you will be solo sooner in the G-103 by training in
> it, rather than training to soloe in the 2-33 and then transitioning to
> the G-103.'
>
> It follows then that you will also likely be solo sooner in the G-102
> or LS-4 or ASW-19 or Jantar Std or whatever follows the G-103. The
> objective is to dream, and seek opportunities to make that dream the
> reality. You might be surprised at what's achieveable when you get rid
> of some of the hurdles.

This has been the philosophy of most large New Zealand gliding clubs for
10 - 15 years now. My own club was a bit late to make the transition,
moving from Blaniks (which are in any case better than 2-33's) to Grobs
only in 1995 or so, but we're now moving on again at the end of this
year to training in DG1000's.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Bruce]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> TTaylor at cc.usu.edu wrote:
>
>> I still think the Jantar Standard meets all those criteria. My first
>> ship was a Std. Cirrus. If I listened to all the pundits I should have
>> been killed because they are so hard to fly. What I found was it was
>> one of the nicest ships around for a first glass and I flew my first
>> cross countries to my diamond distance flights in the ship.
>
>
> As the former owner of a Std Cirrus that I enjoyed for two years and 300
> hours, I have to respectfully disagree with Tim's assessment of the Std
> Cirrus. The Std Cirrus has poor spoilers, the early models had spun
> easily, the all-flying tail is a handful over 80 mph (literally - two
> hands on the stick), the wheel brake is pathetic, and the crash
> protection is minimal (as were all gliders of the era). Nowadays, there
> are MUCH better choices. I would much rather see any pilot in an LS4 (or
> later design), and especially a low time pilot.
>
>
Hi Eric

As current and low time owner of a Std Cirrus -

Yes the airbrakes are mediocre - unless you fit the modification to two plate.
My early model will drop a wing with very little warning, but if you unload the
wing she does not enter a full spin.
If your trim springs are right the all flying tail needs two fingers at any
speed up to Vne - been there.
In the hands of an inexperienced pilot PIO on landing can be a problem. (don't
ask)That elevator is sensitive, as you said.
What wheel brake -

Cirrus certainly forced me to grow my skills, and the Cirrus is
- A great climber
- Not full of vices
- Demanding of precision - which is a good thing if you are learning
- Comfortable for a big lump like me
- Affordable, was the best available that I could afford
- Very favourably handicapped for contests and OLC
- Mine has the best trailer in the club

Are there easier / better gliders - yes - even when it was new. Conversely my
Cirrus has national and international record flights for the first decade of
it's existence.

SO advice remains - Get the best glider you can, and make sure it has a good
trailer, have an instructor who can guide you, treat it with respect.

I am sure I will graduate onto "better" gliders like you, but Std Cirrus #57 has
taken me from a goldfish pilot to a beginner XC and contest pilot, and taught me
a lot. I will no doubt have a MUCH greater appreciation of the genteel manners
of my next airplane, at this stage I don't know better and am very happy with
what I have.

The one thing that will/does motivate me to move up is the crash protection.
First generation glass is not going to be much protection in a crash...

With respect though - the glider is the least of your worries, bad decision
making is far more likely to get you hurt.

--
Bruce Greeff
Std Cirrus #57
I'm no-T at the address above.

[Jono Richards]

What about a Club Libelle or even a Std Libelle? Libelles
do have reputation for being somewhat under-air-braked,
but with practice and an awareness of this, there is
no reason why a Libelle would not be a very attractive
first glider.

-It is a design which has stood the test of time
-It is still competitive in regionals and the club
class
-It is probably the most beautiful glider ever built.
Ever
-Decent performance, good enough for 300km, to 500km
on good days
-It is affordable, a good example being between 6,000
and 10,000 British pounds.
-Easy to rig (reportedly one person can lift a Libelle
wing)
-Can take water ballast (some models)
-Will out climb most of the other 'hot ships'

However, if you are of a big build, the cockpit may
be a bit tight as it is rather narrow.

Just an idea anyhow.

Regards,

JR

[Jono Richards]

What about a Club Libelle or even a Std Libelle? Libelles
do have reputation for being somewhat under-air-braked,
but with practice and an awareness of this, there is
no reason why a Libelle would not be a very attractive
first glider.

-It is a design which has stood the test of time
-It is still competitive in regionals and the club
class
-It is probably the most beautiful glider ever built.
Ever
-Decent performance, good enough for 300km, to 500km
on good days
-It is affordable, a good example being between 6,000
and 10,000 British pounds.
-Easy to rig (reportedly one person can lift a Libelle
wing)
-Can take water ballast (some models)
-Will out climb most of the other 'hot ships'

However, if you are of a big build, the cockpit may
be a bit tight as it is rather narrow.

Just an idea anyhow.

Regards,

JR

[Jono Richards]

What about a Club Libelle or even a Std Libelle? Libelles
do have reputation for being somewhat under-air-braked,
but with practice and an awareness of this, there is
no reason why a Libelle would not be a very attractive
first glider.

-It is a design which has stood the test of time
-It is still competitive in regionals and the club
class
-It is probably the most beautiful glider ever built.
Ever
-Decent performance, good enough for 300km, to 500km
on good days
-It is affordable, a good example being between 6,000
and 10,000 British pounds.
-Easy to rig (reportedly one person can lift a Libelle
wing)
-Can take water ballast (some models)
-Will out climb most of the other 'hot ships'

However, if you are of a big build, the cockpit may
be a bit tight as it is rather narrow.

Just an idea anyhow.

Regards,

JR

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Jono Richards > wrote:

> What about a Club Libelle or even a Std Libelle? Libelles
> do have reputation for being somewhat under-air-braked,
> but with practice and an awareness of this, there is
> no reason why a Libelle would not be a very attractive
> first glider.

The Club Libelle and Std Libelle are very different in this regard.
With the full length trailing edge brakes open I was unable to get the
Club Libelle past 85 knots no matter how far I pushed the nose down.
That's below the rough air speed. The Club Libelle should be able to
survive any kind of turbulence, any kind of upset, pilot disorientation
in cloud etc. Just pull the brakes.


> However, if you are of a big build, the cockpit may
> be a bit tight as it is rather narrow.

The Club Libelle is roomy. I'm big (1.8m and 120 kg) but the only thing
that is a problem in the Std Libelle is my shoulders. That wouldn't
change even if I lost 30 kg. The cockpit is wide low down, but gets
very narrow at the height of the canopy rails. If I can get down low
enough (e.g. no parachute) then it's ok though not wonderful.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Waduino]

Great input! Thanks everyone. Some of the comments are as valuable as the
recommendations. I didn't think it was that relevant but I'd be
transitioning from a Grob CS77 with about 100 hrs PIC from 2-33s and 1-26s
up.

I'll try to summarize, in no particular order:
1. Whatever you do, get a good trailer (and a 1-man rigging thingie, if
appropriate).
2. Go for an LS-4 or any more recent German std class plane, don't worry
about gelcoat.
3. Go for the best you can afford and make sure you have a sound transition
plan.
4. Go for a Jantar Std, PIK 20, or Libelle (there are naysayers for each of
these).
5. Don't go for an old open class ship.
6. Get a 1-34, L-33. (These were based on assumptions of lower time, I
think).
6. My personal favourite, don't "dweeb" on the ground over gelcoat, get a
good plane and fly.

Wad.


"Waduino" > wrote in message
.. .
> Yes I've read lots of posts about buying a first glider. My heart is set
> on an LS-4 since I'd like to stay in the roughly $30K US price range with
> a decent panel and trailer.
>
> BUT, what if I just don't want gelcoat because sooner or later it will
> have to be refinished and that doesn't make any sense economically. Then
> what would you recommend? I'd rather buy something I could fly for a few
> years and not outgrow too quickly and that has a ready market for resale
> should I decide to move up the food chain. BTW I fly in light conditions,
> southern Ontario, Canada.
>
> Thanks.
> Wad.
>
>
>

[Ian Cant]

At 09:36 10 February 2006, Jono Richards wrote:
>-It is probably the most beautiful glider ever built.
>Ever

Libelles have held that well-deserved reputation since
the first one flew. But times change... What about
the Sparrowhawk as the new eye-candy champ ?

Ian

[Eric Greenwell]

Ian Cant wrote:
> At 09:36 10 February 2006, Jono Richards wrote:
>
>>-It is probably the most beautiful glider ever built.
>>Ever
>
>
> Libelles have held that well-deserved reputation since
> the first one flew. But times change... What about
> the Sparrowhawk as the new eye-candy champ ?

The Mercedes Silver one at the convention was especially gorgeous!

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State USA

Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at
www.motorglider.org

[Shawn]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Ian Cant wrote:
>
>> At 09:36 10 February 2006, Jono Richards wrote:
>>
>>> -It is probably the most beautiful glider ever built.
>>> Ever
>>
>>
>>
>> Libelles have held that well-deserved reputation since
>> the first one flew. But times change... What about
>> the Sparrowhawk as the new eye-candy champ ?
>
>
> The Mercedes Silver one at the convention was especially gorgeous!
>
A plastic glider painted to look like metal, interesting.
I still vote for the Libelle. Original Discus 2 (before winglets) was
nice too.

Shawn

[Eric Greenwell]

Shawn wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>

>>> Libelles have held that well-deserved reputation since
>>> the first one flew. But times change... What about
>>> the Sparrowhawk as the new eye-candy champ ?
>>
>>
>>
>> The Mercedes Silver one at the convention was especially gorgeous!
>>
> A plastic glider painted to look like metal, interesting.

It did not look like metal, any more than a silver Mercedes looks like
"metal"! A Blanik looks like metal - no one thinks a silver Mercedes has
the same color, which is more of a metallic silver, and definitely not
an aluminum color.

What I find interesting is metal, wood, and hi-temp epoxy gliders (like
the PIK and SparrowHawk) gliders painted white, when they could be
almost any color. White has become associated with high performance over
the decades, and now people prefer that as the "proper" glider color. In
the pre-glass days of wood and metal, gliders were much more colorful.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

www.motorglider.org

[bumper]

I won't argue the Sparrowhawk isn't pretty - - it is. However, with those
short wings, it doesn't have the graceful symetry and the sensuousness of
the later Schleicher designs. Yup, I'm biased . . . my ASH26E is gorgeous!

bumper

[Stewart Kissel]

Reading the waxing romantically posts in this thread...I
can see how these inanimate objects have become know
as our fiberglass mistresses :)

[Jack]

Eric Greenwell wrote:


> In the pre-glass days of wood and metal,
> gliders were much more colorful.

Yes, I some of the 1-26's have the best looking exteriors in soaring.


Jack