Cirrus vs ASW

[Jeff Runciman]

Thanks for all of the advise. I dont think I can afford
a B or C and I have made 2 minor errors in preflight
in all of my hours. Any suggestions on a 25k and under
sailplane would be appreciated.

Jeff

[[email protected]]

Jeff Runciman wrote:
> Thanks for all of the advise. I dont think I can afford
> a B or C and I have made 2 minor errors in preflight
> in all of my hours. Any suggestions on a 25k and under
> sailplane would be appreciated.
>
> Jeff

I have twice owned an LS-3 -- the original model with the 175 pound
wings. If you have a Komet trailer, it isn't hard to rig an LS-3, and
there is no way to put it together without hooking up all the controls.
They rarely come on the market, but when they do they are dirt cheap
-- probably no more than $20,000. That would leave you $5,000 for all
the instrument and other upgrades that inevitably come with a new glider.

Other than the heavy wings, it is difficult to find fault with the
original LS-3, and the wings really are not bad -- two people can easy
rig in 5 minutes. The newer -3a model has lighter wings, but a manual
hookup for the ailerons, and is considerably more expensive.

[Stewart Kissel]

Well as noted by Marc previously...with a hotellier
fitting on the elevator...getting it right 99% of the
time means you die.




At 01:06 12 March 2006, Jeff Runciman wrote:
>Thanks for all of the advise. I dont think I can afford
>a B or C and I have made 2 minor errors in preflight
>in all of my hours. Any suggestions on a 25k and under
>sailplane would be appreciated.
>
>Jeff
>
>
>

[Jono Richards]

At 01:06 12 March 2006, Jeff Runciman wrote:
>Thanks for all of the advise. I dont think I can afford
>a B or C and I have made 2 minor errors in preflight
>in all of my hours. Any suggestions on a 25k and under
>sailplane would be appreciated.
>
>Jeff

I take it you have looked at:

www.wingsandwheels.com/wantads1.htm

Its great to see what types of gliders are/have been
on the market and the prices they go for.

With your budget, I can see a nice ASW19 for $22,500,
a Jantar for $18000, even a LAK12 (~48:1!!) for $20,500.

I really use it as an eye-opener to what is going around.
LAKs by the way are great machines and have flaps.
At almost 50:1 the performance per dollar cant be matched.
Just make sure you have done a bit of work with bigger
wings (20.5m)....

A friend at my club owns one and has never had any
problems with it, apart from it being a bit heavy on
the rigging side. He made a field landing last week
- late selection, landing in waist high crop, the glider
ground looped and came to rest within 2 fuselage lengths
of touching down. He walked away and the glider didnt
have an ounce of damage.

A glider like that at a price like that means (as someone
has already mentioned) you have a spare $4500 to do
upgrades or just to pocket the difference for those
aerotows!

As with any glider, each has its own characteristics
and should be respected. Do not be put off by flaps
or slightly bigger wings - its just a case of getting
some practice in a 2seater and then taking a day which
you can stay up a long time and get a feel for the
thing.

Hope this is of help,

JR

[Michel Talon]

Jeff Runciman > wrote:
> Thanks for all of the advise. I dont think I can afford
> a B or C and I have made 2 minor errors in preflight
> in all of my hours. Any suggestions on a 25k and under
> sailplane would be appreciated.

The best cheap glider is the Pegasus, by far. But as others have said,
there are at present problems, since the producer Centrair has
abandoned production, and there is a stupid 3000 hours limit. While
these problems are not cleared, it is perhaps not reasonable to buy one.
It is certain that these problems will be cleared since the Pegasus
is the basic club glider in France, there are a large number in use,
and these clubs will do everything necessary to get out of this trap.

>
> Jeff
>
>

--

Michel TALON

[[email protected]]

Michel Talon wrote:
> Jeff Runciman > wrote:
> > Thanks for all of the advise. I dont think I can afford
> > a B or C and I have made 2 minor errors in preflight
> > in all of my hours. Any suggestions on a 25k and under
> > sailplane would be appreciated.
>
> The best cheap glider is the Pegasus, by far. But as others have said,
> there are at present problems, since the producer Centrair has
> abandoned production, and there is a stupid 3000 hours limit. While
> these problems are not cleared, it is perhaps not reasonable to buy one.
> It is certain that these problems will be cleared since the Pegasus
> is the basic club glider in France, there are a large number in use,
> and these clubs will do everything necessary to get out of this trap.
>
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> Michel TALON

That would be very nice if the Centrair would deal with the 3000 hours
issue.

Jacek Kobiesa
Washington State

[Bert Willing]

In France, there is no 3000h issue with the Pegasus. The issue stems from
the FAA's interpretation of the service note, but it is still an issue for
the US and Centrair doesn't seem to be very responsive...

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Michel Talon wrote:
>> Jeff Runciman > wrote:
>> > Thanks for all of the advise. I dont think I can afford
>> > a B or C and I have made 2 minor errors in preflight
>> > in all of my hours. Any suggestions on a 25k and under
>> > sailplane would be appreciated.
>>
>> The best cheap glider is the Pegasus, by far. But as others have said,
>> there are at present problems, since the producer Centrair has
>> abandoned production, and there is a stupid 3000 hours limit. While
>> these problems are not cleared, it is perhaps not reasonable to buy one.
>> It is certain that these problems will be cleared since the Pegasus
>> is the basic club glider in France, there are a large number in use,
>> and these clubs will do everything necessary to get out of this trap.
>>
>> >
>> > Jeff
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>> Michel TALON
>
> That would be very nice if the Centrair would deal with the 3000 hours
> issue.
>
> Jacek Kobiesa
> Washington State
>

[Michel Talon]

wrote:
>
> That would be very nice if the Centrair would deal with the 3000 hours
> issue.
>
> Jacek Kobiesa
> Washington State
>

You are perfectly right. I have always known that the founder of Centrair was
not very serious, and we have one more proof here.
I am still quite sure that this issue will be ironed out since there are
hundreds of Pegase in use in French clubs. If the Pegase was grounded at 3000
hours it would be a domestic catastrophe.
In spite of all these worries, i am not aware that the Pegase has experienced
big problems such as delaminations of wings which have afflicted some of the
most prestigious brands ... Nor does it have nasty tendencies to spin, too
light or too heavy controls, like some other gliders which have been
mentioned. It is very homogeneous, good performing, comfortable, has powerful
air brakes. So a good bang for the buck, even if newer german gliders are
better, but considerably more expensive. I suppose you are thinking of polish
gliders, unfortunately they are not very visible here.


--

Michel TALON

[Michel Talon]

Bert Willing > wrote:
> In France, there is no 3000h issue with the Pegasus. The issue stems from
> the FAA's interpretation of the service note, but it is still an issue for
> the US and Centrair doesn't seem to be very responsive...

Oh, i see! then the question is much more serious that i thought, because
there is no big incentive to strongarm Centrair.

--

Michel TALON

[Jeremy Zawodny]

Bert Willing wrote:
> In France, there is no 3000h issue with the Pegasus. The issue stems from
> the FAA's interpretation of the service note, but it is still an issue for
> the US and Centrair doesn't seem to be very responsive...

You can say that again...

Half of our club's ships are 101As and 2 off them are grounded as a
result of this. :-(

Worse, we've been waiting months for a replacement part that a more
attentive factory should have had little trouble providing.

Jeremy

[Derek Copeland]

At 09:30 12 March 2006, Michel Talon wrote:

>The best cheap glider is the Pegasus, by far. But as
>others have said,
>there are at present problems, since the producer Centrair
>has
>abandoned production, and there is a stupid 3000 hours
>limit. While
>these problems are not cleared, it is perhaps not reasonable
>to buy one.
>It is certain that these problems will be cleared since
>the Pegasus
>is the basic club glider in France, there are a large
>number in use,
>and these clubs will do everything necessary to get
>out of this trap.

I personally think the things ought to be scrapped
after 100 hours! A Standard Cirrus is much preferable,
giving very similar performance, but with decent German
manufacturing standards and a long service life. It
has nice, light, responsive handling, climbs well in
small thermals and has a big and comfortable cockpit.


The only issue is the all-flying tailplane versions.
The elevator loads do not change with speed, and the
glider lacks stick free stability in pitch. However
I have many hundreds of hours in Standard Cirri and
I have never found these issues to be a problem in
practice. If you could be put into the glider at 2000
feet and told to get on with flying it, you probably
wouldn't even notice the difference.

It is probably not a suitable glider for the really
ham fisted, or aerobatic freaks, and you should avoid
letting go of the stick for more than a second or so.
Other than that, it is a brilliant and relatively cheap
soaring club class glider and I don't think there is
anything to beat it for the money.

Derek Copeland (satisfied Standard Cirrus owner)

[Michel Talon]

Derek Copeland > wrote:
>
> I personally think the things ought to be scrapped
> after 100 hours! A Standard Cirrus is much preferable,
> giving very similar performance, but with decent German
> manufacturing standards ^^^^^^^^^^^^

I see that you are posting from UK! Do you remember
that Joan of Arc was living 6 hundred years and Napoleon
2 hundred years ago? You can spare us this bull****.

> has nice, light, responsive handling, climbs well in
> small thermals

So does the Pegase.

> and has a big and comfortable cockpit.

This is the only thing true in your rant.

> Other than that, it is a brilliant and relatively cheap
> soaring club class glider and I don't think there is
> anything to beat it for the money.

Other than that it has killed a fair number of pilots.


--

Michel TALON

[Pilot Bald]

At 08:18 14 March 2006, Michel Talon wrote:
>Derek Copeland wrote:
>>
>> I personally think the things ought to be scrapped
>> after 100 hours! A Standard Cirrus is much preferable,
>> giving very similar performance, but with decent German
>> manufacturing standards ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I see that you are posting from UK! Do you remember
>that Joan of Arc was living 6 hundred years and Napoleon
>2 hundred years ago? You can spare us this bull****.
>
>> has nice, light, responsive handling, climbs well
>>in
>> small thermals
>
>So does the Pegase.
>
>> and has a big and comfortable cockpit.
>
>This is the only thing true in your rant.
>
>> Other than that, it is a brilliant and relatively
>>cheap
>> soaring club class glider and I don't think there
>>is
>> anything to beat it for the money.
>
>Other than that it has killed a fair number of pilots.
>
>
>--
>
>Michel TALON


Michel,

Derek Piggott describes the Pegase in his 'Help with
Chosing Your Next Glider' as follows:

Gereral handling - 5 out of 5.
Stalling characteristics - 4/5
Cockpit size - 4/5
Rigging & ground handling - average.

Comment - 'Very nice in all respects. Similar in performance
to ASW-19 but more feel to ailerons.

I wanted to buy one at one time but could not find
one in good enough condition.
Bought a Standard Jantar-3 instead - and am very satisfied
- other than with the wheel brake.

Owned an Open Cirrus for years - lovely to fly - pig
to rig.

Flew a club D75 Cirrus - now that really was a pig
!

Vive la Difference !

Bald Pilot.

UK.

[Michel Talon]

Pilot Bald > wrote:
>
> Derek Piggott describes the Pegase in his 'Help with
> Chosing Your Next Glider' as follows:
>
> Gereral handling - 5 out of 5.
> Stalling characteristics - 4/5
> Cockpit size - 4/5
> Rigging & ground handling - average.

This i agree totally. Rigging is not a strong point of the Pegase
(at least the first version). Cockpit size of the Cirrus is certainly
better.


>
> Comment - 'Very nice in all respects. Similar in performance
> to ASW-19 but more feel to ailerons.
>

From my own feeling, the Pegase is much better than the ASW19 in
all respects. Soft wings make it more comfortable, and it is much more stable
at low speed. I find it a better climber. A fantastic climber was the
ASW15.

>
> Owned an Open Cirrus for years - lovely to fly - pig
> to rig.
>
> Flew a club D75 Cirrus - now that really was a pig

I have flown the Cirrus also, it has good qualities and is comfortable.
But it is spin prone, and this is a serious problem.

>
> Vive la Difference !

Yes. I think the glider which has essentially 0 default from this period
is the LS4. Unfortunately people know that and it is more expensive.


--

Michel TALON

[Derek Copeland]

At 08:18 14 March 2006, Michel Talon wrote:
>I see that you are posting from UK! Do you remember
>that Joan of Arc was living 6 hundred years and Napoleon
>2 hundred years ago? You can spare us this bull****.
----------------------------
Can I take it that you are French?
-----------------------------
>> has nice, light, responsive handling, climbs well
>>in
>> small thermals
>
>So does the Pegase.
>
>> and has a big and comfortable cockpit.
>
>This is the only thing true in your rant.
--------------------------------
I think that you have already admitted that, like the
Peg, the Standard Cirrus has nice, light and responsive
handling and climbs well in small thermals!

Standard Cirri have cleaned up at most recent Club
Class competitions.
--------------------------------
>> Other than that, it is a brilliant and relatively
>>cheap
>> soaring club class glider and I don't think there
>>is
>> anything to beat it for the money.
>
>Other than that it has killed a fair number of pilots.
---------------------------------
When? I don't believe that the Standard Cirrus is any
more dangerous than any other type. It gives you plenty
of warning before it stalls and will normally spin
only if you force it to.

Derek copeland

[Pilot Bald]

At 12:37 14 March 2006, Michel Talon wrote:
>Pilot Bald wrote:

Michel TALON

Michel,

This business of 3000 hour lifespan limitation is,
undoubtedly, a major hurdle.

I have some experience of this in relation to the Polish
Puchacz (6000 hours) but the matter seems to have been
resolved - at least in part.

Centrair will have to address itself to this problem
- but, as you say, there are many club Pegase in France
- so that pressure on the manufacturer will be substantial
and, I am sure, successful.

Centrair must have plenty of evidence that the structure
does not disintegrate after 3000 hours ??!!

It would be a great pity to see such a fine glider
grounded by default - and, of course, potential buyers
will be severely put off until the matter is resolved.

I wish all owners the best of luck.

Bald Pilot,

UK.

[Jono Richards]

>I have some experience of this in relation to the Polish
>Puchacz (6000 hours) but the matter seems to have been
>resolved - at least in part.

Send it away to Poland, and it comes back brand-spankin
clean with life extension to 12000hours. Its effectively
a new glider, and looks very attractive. Wasnt crazily
expensive, but the guy who had to tow it there....
:-s

[Michel Talon]

Pilot Bald > wrote:
>
> This business of 3000 hour lifespan limitation is,
> undoubtedly, a major hurdle.

Yes.

>
> Centrair must have plenty of evidence that the structure
> does not disintegrate after 3000 hours ??!!
>

Obviously if Centrair was still in business the life would be extended
exactly the same as all german gliders. The problem is that
Centrair is no more in the glider business, they subcontract parts for
other aviation factories:
http://www.indre.cci.fr/implanter/savoirfaire/fiche.php?sct=CAA&fic_id=24
I have found this by googling:

The FAA has published a recent Airworthiness Directive stating that all
Pegasus gliders are limited to 3000 total flight hours. This arose because the
original certification paperwork for the Pegasus in the U.S. stated there was
a 3000 hour life and did not include a procedure for a major inspection at
3000 hours to extend the life beyond that point. In Europe, the Pegasus has a
12,000 hour life limit with major inspections required each 3000 hours. Once
Centrair comes up with a 3000 hour inspection procedure that satisfies the
FAA, the FAA should publish a new AD setting forth that procedure and allowing
Pegasus gliders to be used beyond 3000 hours if the inspection is complied
with. Hopefully, that new AD should come out in a few months.

Of course this 12000 hours limit is a reasonable limit and extends to a period
where nobody will still want to fly such an old beast.

Clearly Centrair treats its american customers in an indecent way, and
this is a major problem for them. Am i surprised of this lack of seriousness?
Not really, knowing all those stories about the Marianne and other Centrair
fiascos. To extend the discussion one of the main problems in France is the
poor state of small industries (what we call PME). Conversely Germany
has a very strong net of such small industries, which innovate, export, etc.
The Pegasus was a success, not because of Centrair, but because of the wing
studies by public researchers, and subsidies by the French glider
associations. When all that run out, so did Centrair.


--

Michel TALON

[W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\).]

The Pegasus was also a success because of the lessons learnt when producing
the ASW20 under licence.

The Pegasus is clearly an unflapped version of the ASW20, just as the LS8 is
an unflapped version of the LS6.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "Michel Talon" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> Pilot Bald > wrote:
>>
>> This business of 3000 hour lifespan limitation is,
>> undoubtedly, a major hurdle.
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> <snip>
>
> Clearly Centrair treats its American customers in an indecent way, and
> this is a major problem for them. Am I surprised of this lack of
> seriousness? Not really, knowing all those stories about the Marianne
> and other Centrair fiascos. To extend the discussion one of the main
> problems in France is the poor state of small industries (what we call
> PME). Conversely Germany has a very strong net of such small industries,
> which innovate, export, etc. The Pegasus was a success, not because of
> Centrair, but because of the wing studies by public researchers, and
> subsidies by the French glider associations. When all that run out, so
> did Centrair.
>
> Michel TALON
>

[Bert Willing]

The Pegasus has a completely different airfoil (developed by the French
research institute ONERA) than the Schleicher gliders, and it's the reason
that a Pegasus has a significantly higher performance than an ASW19. But for
the rest, I agree :-)

"W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)." > wrote in message
...
> The Pegasus was also a success because of the lessons learnt when
> producing
> the ASW20 under licence.
>
> The Pegasus is clearly an unflapped version of the ASW20, just as the LS8
> is
> an unflapped version of the LS6.
>
> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
> Remove "ic" to reply.
>
>>
>> "Michel Talon" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> Pilot Bald > wrote:
>>>
>>> This business of 3000 hour lifespan limitation is,
>>> undoubtedly, a major hurdle.
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Clearly Centrair treats its American customers in an indecent way, and
>> this is a major problem for them. Am I surprised of this lack of
>> seriousness? Not really, knowing all those stories about the Marianne
>> and other Centrair fiascos. To extend the discussion one of the main
>> problems in France is the poor state of small industries (what we call
>> PME). Conversely Germany has a very strong net of such small
>> industries,
>> which innovate, export, etc. The Pegasus was a success, not because of
>> Centrair, but because of the wing studies by public researchers, and
>> subsidies by the French glider associations. When all that run out, so
>> did Centrair.
>>
>> Michel TALON
>>
>
>
>

[Michel Talon]

"W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\)." > wrote:
> The Pegasus was also a success because of the lessons learnt when producing
> the ASW20 under licence.
>

Yes. But then the Marianne should have been a greater success from the lessons
of producing the Pegase.

> The Pegasus is clearly an unflapped version of the ASW20, just as the LS8 is
> an unflapped version of the LS6.

No, this is not true. The fuselage is the same more or less, but the wings are
completely different, with a new design, obtained by public researchers at
ONERA. This has been hashed and rehashed many times. I suppose you will not
object to the point that the wing design is by far the most important point
in the design of a glider, and that almost all performance and handling comes
from that.


--

Michel TALON

[Andreas Maurer]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:27:02 +0100, "Bert Willing"
> wrote:

>The Pegasus has a completely different airfoil (developed by the French
>research institute ONERA) than the Schleicher gliders, and it's the reason
>that a Pegasus has a significantly higher performance than an ASW19. But for
>the rest, I agree :-)

Hi Bert,

are the Pegase airfoil coordinates available somewhere?

I'd really be interested in a closer look at the Pegase's airfoil -
because I usually flew my ASW-20 with flap setting 3 (=neutral flaps)
while thermalling and got the impression that this setting would make
the 20 a very high performance standard class glider. In my opinion
the FX 62-K131 is a very good fixed wing airfoil.





Bye
Andreas

[Bert Willing]

I have no idea how to get hold of the airfoil coordinates...


"Andreas Maurer" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:27:02 +0100, "Bert Willing"
> > wrote:
>
>>The Pegasus has a completely different airfoil (developed by the French
>>research institute ONERA) than the Schleicher gliders, and it's the reason
>>that a Pegasus has a significantly higher performance than an ASW19. But
>>for
>>the rest, I agree :-)
>
> Hi Bert,
>
> are the Pegase airfoil coordinates available somewhere?
>
> I'd really be interested in a closer look at the Pegase's airfoil -
> because I usually flew my ASW-20 with flap setting 3 (=neutral flaps)
> while thermalling and got the impression that this setting would make
> the 20 a very high performance standard class glider. In my opinion
> the FX 62-K131 is a very good fixed wing airfoil.
>
>
>
>
>
> Bye
> Andreas

[Derek Copeland]

Shouldn't this thread be relabelled as I have done
it?

Where did the Standard Cirrus get to?

By the way M. Talon, I wasn't intending to have a pop
at the French (this time anyway), despite the fact
that they make life as difficult as they possibly can
for us 'roast beef' glider pilots. I was merely trying
to promote the Standard Cirrus.

With EASA taking over aviation in Europe, the problem
of life expired gliders that are no longer supported
by their manufacturers (some of whom have ceased trading)
may in the long term affect quite types of sailplane,
not only the Centrair ones.

Derek Copeland

At 17:30 14 March 2006, Bert Willing wrote:
>I have no idea how to get hold of the airfoil coordinates...
>
>
>'Andreas Maurer' wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:27:02 +0100, 'Bert Willing'
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The Pegasus has a completely different airfoil (developed
>>>by the French
>>>research institute ONERA) than the Schleicher gliders,
>>>and it's the reason
>>>that a Pegasus has a significantly higher performance
>>>than an ASW19. But
>>>for
>>>the rest, I agree :-)
>>
>> Hi Bert,
>>
>> are the Pegase airfoil coordinates available somewhere?
>>
>> I'd really be interested in a closer look at the Pegase's
>>airfoil -
>> because I usually flew my ASW-20 with flap setting
>>3 (=neutral flaps)
>> while thermalling and got the impression that this
>>setting would make
>> the 20 a very high performance standard class glider.
>>In my opinion
>> the FX 62-K131 is a very good fixed wing airfoil.
>>

[[email protected]]

To All:

So, if the Centrair is out of business who, and how can extend the life
of the Pegasus to satisfy the FAA? Now, if the glider has more than
3000 hours can it be flown in Experimental Cat.? I was just looking at
possibility of buying one here, in the US....but it may not be worth
buying one nowadays?

Jacek Kobiesa
Washington State

[Jono Richards]

Right, can I just check... this trouble about hours
is because of the FAA, so in Britain are there any
problems? Or is it just that under the FAA?

At 19:00 14 March 2006,
wrote:
>To All:
>
>So, if the Centrair is out of business who, and how
>can extend the life
>of the Pegasus to satisfy the FAA? Now, if the glider
>has more than
>3000 hours can it be flown in Experimental Cat.? I
>was just looking at
>possibility of buying one here, in the US....but it
>may not be worth
>buying one nowadays?
>
>Jacek Kobiesa
>Washington State
>
>

[Derek Copeland]

In the UK gliders first registered in the UK before
September 2003 are still controlled by the British
Gliding Association. Any new glider or glider imported
into the UK after September 2003 has to have a Civil
Aviation Authority (nickname Campaign Against Aviation)
registration and C of A, and is, or will be, under
the ultimate control of EASA (European Aviation Safety
Agency).

I therefore believe that we will eventually have the
same problem. There are a number of types of glider
whose makers are no longer trading or supporting their
gliders. I don't know the exact position of Centrair.
Perhaps a French person could explain.

Derek Copeland

At 10:00 15 March 2006, Jono Richards wrote:
>
>Right, can I just check... this trouble about hours
>is because of the FAA, so in Britain are there any
>problems? Or is it just that under the FAA?
>
>At 19:00 14 March 2006,
>wrote:
>>To All:
>>
>>So, if the Centrair is out of business who, and how
>>can extend the life
>>of the Pegasus to satisfy the FAA? Now, if the glider
>>has more than
>>3000 hours can it be flown in Experimental Cat.? I
>>was just looking at
>>possibility of buying one here, in the US....but it
>>may not be worth
>>buying one nowadays?
>>
>>Jacek Kobiesa
>>Washington State

[[email protected]]

Jono Richards wrote:
> Right, can I just check... this trouble about hours
> is because of the FAA, so in Britain are there any
> problems? Or is it just that under the FAA?
>
> At 19:00 14 March 2006,
> wrote:
> >To All:
> >
> >So, if the Centrair is out of business who, and how
> >can extend the life
> >of the Pegasus to satisfy the FAA? Now, if the glider
> >has more than
> >3000 hours can it be flown in Experimental Cat.? I
> >was just looking at
> >possibility of buying one here, in the US....but it
> >may not be worth
> >buying one nowadays?
> >
> >Jacek Kobiesa
> >Washington State
> >
> >

That is only under the FAA.

[Jeff Runciman]

Thank you for all of your help.

It turns out the ASW is 50,000. The Cirrus makes me
a bit nervous with the tail (attaching and flying)
Has anybody got any thoughts on the Standard Jantar?
I can live with the two piece canopy (cant be modded
in Canada because there is no experimental class).
I also understand the gear is big for bumpy off fields
although may cause it to nose over with hard braking.
Other than that I know very little. Any advise would
be appreciated.

Jeff

[Robert Hart]

Jeff Runciman wrote:
> Thank you for all of your help.
>
> It turns out the ASW is 50,000. The Cirrus makes me
> a bit nervous with the tail (attaching and flying)

I've not had much to do with Cirrus's - but I have had to deal with the
same all flying tail plane on a borrowed Nimbus 2 whilst my 2c was in
for repairs (see
http://www.hart.wattle.id.au/alice/articles/alice3mar04.html).

I too was somewhat twitched at the stories I had heard about the all
flying tail and its sensitivity, so my first launch had me waiting in
some apprehension - which was completely unwarranted.

Whilst the all flying tail does mean that you shouldn't let go off the
stick at high speed (or even for long at low speed) it does not make the
aircraft unstable in pitch. It's certainly more sensitive in pitch and
PIOs are easier to do - but remember a PIO is a PILOT induced
oscillation and not a problem with the aircraft!

As for rigging and making sure the elevator is correctly attached, it is
a bit difficult at first, but after a couple of goes it didn't present a
great problem.

I did however do an extremely careful loaded control check as part of
the DI (get someone to hold the all flying tail to restrict its movement
and then firmly move the control column) to ensure that it truly was
attached and not just 'resting'!

I would suggest you don't rule out a Cirrus just because of the
'stories' about the all flying tail. It is my experience that these are
exaggerated - but do of course contain a kernel of truth as noted above!

Robert

[Ray Lovinggood]

I have not flown a Schempp Hirth design with an all
flying tail (stabilator), but I've flown my LS1-d,
which does have an all flying tail, for over 10 years,
and you can trim it and let go of the stick. No problem.
If I need both hands to open a snack or change my
sunglasses to my clear glasses, I can easily set up
the ship to fly itself. You don't have to 'mind the
store' every second.

I haven't tried this above 60 knots, but below 60 knots,
there is no problem. And because it trims nicely at
75 knots, I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem to let
go of the stick for a few seconds at that speed either.
Usually, I only need to let go for a couple of seconds.
It doesn't take long to peel a banana or open a pack
of 'nabs.'

Ray Lovinggood
Happy Owner of LS1-d
s/n 27, 'W8'


At 00:00 21 March 2006, Robert Hart wrote:
>Jeff Runciman wrote:
>> Thank you for all of your help.
>>
>> It turns out the ASW is 50,000. The Cirrus makes
>>me
>> a bit nervous with the tail (attaching and flying)
>
>I've not had much to do with Cirrus's - but I have
>had to deal with the
>same all flying tail plane on a borrowed Nimbus 2 whilst
>my 2c was in
>for repairs (see
>http://www.hart.wattle.id.au/alice/articles/alice3mar04.html).
>
>I too was somewhat twitched at the stories I had heard
>about the all
>flying tail and its sensitivity, so my first launch
>had me waiting in
>some apprehension - which was completely unwarranted.
>
>Whilst the all flying tail does mean that you shouldn't
>let go off the
>stick at high speed (or even for long at low speed)
>it does not make the
>aircraft unstable in pitch. It's certainly more sensitive
>in pitch and
>PIOs are easier to do - but remember a PIO is a PILOT
>induced
>oscillation and not a problem with the aircraft!
>
>As for rigging and making sure the elevator is correctly
>attached, it is
>a bit difficult at first, but after a couple of goes
>it didn't present a
>great problem.
>
>I did however do an extremely careful loaded control
>check as part of
>the DI (get someone to hold the all flying tail to
>restrict its movement
>and then firmly move the control column) to ensure
>that it truly was
>attached and not just 'resting'!
>
>I would suggest you don't rule out a Cirrus just because
>of the
>'stories' about the all flying tail. It is my experience
>that these are
>exaggerated - but do of course contain a kernel of
>truth as noted above!
>
>Robert
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Ray Lovinggood wrote:

> I haven't tried this above 60 knots, but below 60 knots,
> there is no problem. And because it trims nicely at
> 75 knots, I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem to let
> go of the stick for a few seconds at that speed either.
> Usually, I only need to let go for a couple of seconds.
> It doesn't take long to peel a banana or open a pack
> of 'nabs.'

It isn't a trim issue on the Std Cirrus, it is a G induced control
movement. It does not have a "balanced" elevator drive mechanism,
meaning a positive G surge tends to _increase_ the amount of "up"
elevator, which tended to increase the G loading, which ... you get the
idea. You can feel the stick reacting to bumps and surges as you fly it
a higher speeds. That was why letting go of the stick a speeds over 80
mph in my Std Cirrus was most unwise. At lower speeds, especially
thermalling, no problem.

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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

[Bruce]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Ray Lovinggood wrote:
>
>> I haven't tried this above 60 knots, but below 60 knots,
>> there is no problem. And because it trims nicely at
>> 75 knots, I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem to let
>> go of the stick for a few seconds at that speed either.
>> Usually, I only need to let go for a couple of seconds.
>> It doesn't take long to peel a banana or open a pack
>> of 'nabs.'
>
>
> It isn't a trim issue on the Std Cirrus, it is a G induced control
> movement. It does not have a "balanced" elevator drive mechanism,
> meaning a positive G surge tends to _increase_ the amount of "up"
> elevator, which tended to increase the G loading, which ... you get the
> idea. You can feel the stick reacting to bumps and surges as you fly it
> a higher speeds. That was why letting go of the stick a speeds over 80
> mph in my Std Cirrus was most unwise. At lower speeds, especially
> thermalling, no problem.
>
You can release the stick for short periods in a Std Cirrus. It is not a
fearsome beastie that will bite the moment it is not being actively controlled.
There is no stick free stability, so if you let go for any length of time the
airspeed will slowly diverge into a phugoid. On mine the amplitude also slowly
increases. Turbulence can trigger sharper divergences, but you would surely not
be flying hands off in this situation...

Often the best way to improve thermal centering is to stop flying - in my case
the Cirrus is generally better at grooving a thermal than me, the lighter touch
really works a lot better. If you like to make big positive control movements
before antything happens get a Grob 103...

At high speed it is a different matter. Again I find the pro-disturbance
movement helps. You get an automatic "mini pull up" in any good surge of lift.
If you want to take it you follow through, if not you correct.

The Jantar is apparently also nice and light on the controls. WOuld not go wrong
with one of those either.
--
Bruce Greeff
Std Cirrus #57
I'm no-T at the address above.

[Derek Copeland]

At various times I have owned a Cirrus 75 and a Nimbus
2, both with all flying tailplanes. Interestingly we
once compared the Nimbus 2 tailplane to that belonging
to an adjacent Standard Cirrus in the workshop during
a C of A and found they were exactly the same. The
Nimbus has a much longer tail boom though. The tailplane
usually either goes on properly, or jams in the up
position if you fail to engage the elevator drive hook,
so it is obvious if you have got it wrong. As for all
types a positive control check is recommended before
flight.

The Nimbus was definitely the twitchier of the two
types as it seemed to suffer from aero-elasticity,
i.e. if you pulled back on the stick the wings bent
up first and then the fuselage followed about a second
later. Nevertheless I found it quite easy to fly and
even did some cloud climbs in it.

By comparison the Standard Cirrus was very easy to
fly, subject to the usual provisos for all-flying tailplanes.
Don't be put off this lovely glider by all the scare
stories!

Derek Copeland
-------------------------

At 00:00 21 March 2006, Robert Hart wrote:
>Jeff Runciman wrote:
>> Thank you for all of your help.
>>
>> It turns out the ASW is 50,000. The Cirrus makes
>>me
>> a bit nervous with the tail (attaching and flying)
>
>I've not had much to do with Cirrus's - but I have
>had to deal with the
>same all flying tail plane on a borrowed Nimbus 2 whilst
>my 2c was in
>for repairs (see
>http://www.hart.wattle.id.au/alice/articles/alice3mar04.html).
>
>I too was somewhat twitched at the stories I had heard
>about the all
>flying tail and its sensitivity, so my first launch
>had me waiting in
>some apprehension - which was completely unwarranted.
>
>Whilst the all flying tail does mean that you shouldn't
>let go off the
>stick at high speed (or even for long at low speed)
>it does not make the
>aircraft unstable in pitch. It's certainly more sensitive
>in pitch and
>PIOs are easier to do - but remember a PIO is a PILOT
>induced
>oscillation and not a problem with the aircraft!
>
>As for rigging and making sure the elevator is correctly
>attached, it is
>a bit difficult at first, but after a couple of goes
>it didn't present a
>great problem.
>
>I did however do an extremely careful loaded control
>check as part of
>the DI (get someone to hold the all flying tail to
>restrict its movement
>and then firmly move the control column) to ensure
>that it truly was
>attached and not just 'resting'!
>
>I would suggest you don't rule out a Cirrus just because
>of the
>'stories' about the all flying tail. It is my experience
>that these are
>exaggerated - but do of course contain a kernel of
>truth as noted above!
>
>Robert
>

[W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\).]

Don't overlook that Derek Copeland is large and very heavy.

C. of G. position makes a lot of difference to the feel and stability of any
glider.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "Derek Copeland" >
> wrote in message ...
>
> At various times I have owned a Cirrus 75 and a Nimbus
> 2, both with all flying tailplanes. Interestingly we
> once compared the Nimbus 2 tailplane to that belonging
> to an adjacent Standard Cirrus in the workshop during
> a C of A and found they were exactly the same. The
> Nimbus has a much longer tail boom though. The tailplane
> usually either goes on properly, or jams in the up
> position if you fail to engage the elevator drive hook,
> so it is obvious if you have got it wrong. As for all
> types a positive control check is recommended before
> flight.
>
> The Nimbus was definitely the twitchier of the two
> types as it seemed to suffer from aero-elasticity,
> i.e. if you pulled back on the stick the wings bent
> up first and then the fuselage followed about a second
> later. Nevertheless I found it quite easy to fly and
> even did some cloud climbs in it.
>
> By comparison the Standard Cirrus was very easy to
> fly, subject to the usual provisos for all-flying tailplanes.
> Don't be put off this lovely glider by all the scare
> stories!
>
> Derek Copeland
> -------------------------
>

[Bruce]

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). wrote:
> Don't overlook that Derek Copeland is large and very heavy.
>
> C. of G. position makes a lot of difference to the feel and stability of any
> glider.
>
> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
> Remove "ic" to reply.
>
>

Hi Bill

You are right - My partner in the Cirrus is a lot less comfortable - he is 80kg.
Conversely, maybe that's why I (110Kg) am so comfortable in the Cirrus.

CG is deffinitely "forward" with me in front.
--
Bruce Greeff
Std Cirrus #57
I'm no-T at the address above.

[Derek Copeland]

Er!...something about the pot calling the kettle black
Bill?

My normal weight is in the 14 to 15 stone range, but
due to an even larger and heavier syndicate partner
who fitted quite a lot of lead to the back of the Nimbus
so that he could trim it out when thermalling, I was
actually flying the Nimbus pretty close to the minimum
cockpit weight limit. Still handled OK though.

Derek Copeland
------------------------
At 13:18 21 March 2006, W.J. \bill\ Dean \u.K.\. wrote:
>Don't overlook that Derek Copeland is large and very
>heavy.
>
>C. of G. position makes a lot of difference to the
>feel and stability of any
>glider.
>
>W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
>Remove 'ic' to reply.
>
>>
>> 'Derek Copeland'
>> wrote in message ...
>>
>> At various times I have owned a Cirrus 75 and a Nimbus
>> 2, both with all flying tailplanes. Interestingly
>>we
>> once compared the Nimbus 2 tailplane to that belonging
>> to an adjacent Standard Cirrus in the workshop during
>> a C of A and found they were exactly the same. The
>> Nimbus has a much longer tail boom though. The tailplane
>> usually either goes on properly, or jams in the up
>> position if you fail to engage the elevator drive
>>hook,
>> so it is obvious if you have got it wrong. As for
>>all
>> types a positive control check is recommended before
>> flight.
>>
>> The Nimbus was definitely the twitchier of the two
>> types as it seemed to suffer from aero-elasticity,
>> i.e. if you pulled back on the stick the wings bent
>> up first and then the fuselage followed about a second
>> later. Nevertheless I found it quite easy to fly and
>> even did some cloud climbs in it.
>>
>> By comparison the Standard Cirrus was very easy to
>> fly, subject to the usual provisos for all-flying
>>tailplanes.
>> Don't be put off this lovely glider by all the scare
>> stories!
>>
>> Derek Copeland
>> -------------------------

[[email protected]]

One thing non of you guys mention is you need to replace the trim
springs on the all flying tail models.

a buddy at minden did that on his Nimbus 2.
By replacing the 70's vintage worn out stretched trim springs with new
one it changed the glider.
He could let go of the stick and it would not go divergent on him for
extended periods.

Anyone buying of flying an all flying tail Schemp anything should
replace the trim springs.

Regards

Al
http://www.gliderforum.com

[Derek Copeland]

Do you sell springs by any chance?

Del. C

At 18:01 21 March 2006, wrote:
>One thing non of you guys mention is you need to replace
>the trim
>springs on the all flying tail models.
>
>a buddy at minden did that on his Nimbus 2.
>By replacing the 70's vintage worn out stretched trim
>springs with new
>one it changed the glider.
>He could let go of the stick and it would not go divergent
>on him for
>extended periods.
>
>Anyone buying of flying an all flying tail Schemp anything
>should
>replace the trim springs.
>
>Regards
>
>Al
>http://www.gliderforum.com

[Charlie Brown]

My club has both a Jantar and Cirrus. The Jantar get's a lot more use.
It's easier to fly and has better performance than the cirrus. I would
think the jantar would be a better machine for landouts (bigger wheel and
spoilers are more effective). I wouldn't worry about a nose over. All this
being said, I prefer the cirrus over the jantar because of the big cockpit.
Some people prefer the Jantar cockpit. It all comes down too what's best
for YOU.. Go to a location that has a glider model that your interested in.
Help rig\derig, ask a bunch more questions, sit in it to see if the cockpit
will work for you... You never know, they might even let you fly it. I've
done this over the years and as a result a have several gliders on my not to
buy list!!!

charlie

"Jeff Runciman" > wrote in message
...
> Thank you for all of your help.
>
> It turns out the ASW is 50,000. The Cirrus makes me
> a bit nervous with the tail (attaching and flying)
> Has anybody got any thoughts on the Standard Jantar?
> I can live with the two piece canopy (cant be modded
> in Canada because there is no experimental class).
> I also understand the gear is big for bumpy off fields
> although may cause it to nose over with hard braking.
> Other than that I know very little. Any advise would
> be appreciated.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Derek Copeland wrote:
> By comparison the Standard Cirrus was very easy to
> fly, subject to the usual provisos for all-flying tailplanes.
> Don't be put off this lovely glider by all the scare
> stories!

When a number of experienced pilots, some of them CFIGs, and some with
thousands of hours, who have flown a variety of gliders, issue warnings
about a particular glider, that rises above the level of "scare
stories". For example, you do not hear this controversy over the LS4.
These warnings should be respected and considered carefully, especially
if you are a less experienced pilot. The Std. Cirrus is not an LS4 with
a quirk or two.

For clarification, the Std Cirrus I refer is not the Cirrus 75, but the
older models called "Standard Cirrus". The Cirrus 75 had a number of
changes, such as better airbrakes, and I am not familiar with it.

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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

[Derek Copeland]

Sorry Eric but you are talking b*ll*cks. The Standard
Cirrus may not have quite the same modern safe handling
as a LS4 or a Discus, but any competent pilot should
be able to fly one quite easily and safely. They also
have the advantage of costing a fraction of the amount
expected for these supposedly more desirable types
and are not that far short on performance.

The differences between the earlier Standard Cirrus
and the later Standard Cirrus75 are wing root fillets
to improve the low speed handling, bigger airbrakes
and I believe slight changes to the wing section and
tailplane mounting. The airbrakes on either type can
be greatly improved by fitting the bolt on double paddle
kits, and I would recommend that these should be fitted.


The last couple of versions were fitted with conventional
tailplanes after the vogue for all flying tailplanes
passed, and these handle pretty much like the Discus.

The only issue with all flying-tailplanes is that they
tend to trail along the relative airflow. This means
that if you let go of the stick the glider will have
little stick free stability. If it is not perfectly
trimmed out, or hits disturbed air, it will slowly
enter an ever increasing phugoid which will not damp
itself out. However if you do remember to hold the
stick, this problem disappears and the glider will
be as stable in pitch as any other type, as long as
the cockpit weight limits are observed. How often
and for how long do you normally fly without holding
the stick?

If you could be placed in a Standard Cirrus at 2000
feet and told to get on with flying it, you probably
wouldn't even notice that it had an all flying tailplane.
The only thing you might find out if you experimented
a bit is that the elevator loads do not change with
speed. This probably makes it unsuitable for aerobatics
unless you are very skilled at doing them, although
it is certified as semi-aerobatic. Best to regard it
as a soaring machine, which it does very well. Standard
Cirri usually clean up in Club Class competitions.

All the owners I know love their Standard Cirruses,
not least because of the light and precise handling.

Derek Copeland
----------------------------------
At 23:24 21 March 2006, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Derek Copeland wrote:
>> By comparison the Standard Cirrus was very easy to
>> fly, subject to the usual provisos for all-flying
>>tailplanes.
>> Don't be put off this lovely glider by all the scare
>> stories!
>
>When a number of experienced pilots, some of them CFIGs,
>and some with
>thousands of hours, who have flown a variety of gliders,
>issue warnings
>about a particular glider, that rises above the level
>of 'scare
>stories'. For example, you do not hear this controversy
>over the LS4.
>These warnings should be respected and considered carefully,
>especially
>if you are a less experienced pilot. The Std. Cirrus
>is not an LS4 with
>a quirk or two.
>
>For clarification, the Std Cirrus I refer is not the
>Cirrus 75, but the
>older models called 'Standard Cirrus'. The Cirrus 75
>had a number of
>changes, such as better airbrakes, and I am not familiar
>with it.
>
>--
>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>
>www.motorglider.org - Download 'A Guide to Self-launching
>Sailplane
>Operation'
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Derek Copeland wrote:
> Sorry Eric but you are talking b*ll*cks.

Please read this part again:"When a number of experienced pilots, some
of them CFIGs, and some with thousands of hours, who have flown a
variety of gliders,issue warnings about a particular glider, that rises
above the level of 'scare stories'."

It's not just me, it's not just an anorak with 20 hours in a 2-33 that
scares himself in his first flight in a Std Cirrus. That would be a
"scare story".

> The Standard
> Cirrus may not have quite the same modern safe handling
> as a LS4 or a Discus, but any competent pilot should
> be able to fly one quite easily and safely.

That begs the question: "any competent pilot". Yes, someone that can fly
it safely can fly it safely. My comments were to the less experienced
pilot that might be able to safely fly an LS4 but not the Std Cirrus.

> They also
> have the advantage of costing a fraction of the amount
> expected for these supposedly more desirable types
> and are not that far short on performance.

Yes, they are cheaper, and it's not just because they are older or have
less performance. Cheaper may not be a good value for the less
experienced pilot.

snip

> The only issue with all flying-tailplanes is that they
> tend to trail along the relative airflow. This means
> that if you let go of the stick the glider will have
> little stick free stability. If it is not perfectly
> trimmed out, or hits disturbed air, it will slowly
> enter an ever increasing phugoid which will not damp
> itself out. However if you do remember to hold the
> stick, this problem disappears and the glider will
> be as stable in pitch as any other type, as long as
> the cockpit weight limits are observed. How often
> and for how long do you normally fly without holding
> the stick?

Not very often, but my Std Cirrus was the only one I didn't dare let go
of the stick over about 80 mph. Have you missed the discussion of the
positive feedback in turbulence from the unbalanced elevator circuit? My
other gliders didn't have that.

>
> If you could be placed in a Standard Cirrus at 2000
> feet and told to get on with flying it, you probably
> wouldn't even notice that it had an all flying tailplane.

I sure did in mine.

> The only thing you might find out if you experimented
> a bit is that the elevator loads do not change with
> speed. This probably makes it unsuitable for aerobatics
> unless you are very skilled at doing them, although
> it is certified as semi-aerobatic. Best to regard it
> as a soaring machine, which it does very well. Standard
> Cirri usually clean up in Club Class competitions.
>
> All the owners I know love their Standard Cirruses,
> not least because of the light and precise handling.

I did not love my Standard Cirrus, but I did like it. It's handling
stunk compared to my ASW 20 C. What a difference! The designers have
learned a lot since the Standard Cirrus was designed almost 40 years ago.

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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

[Derek Copeland]

Hi Eric

I can only say that as a UK qualified instructor with
several hundred hours in the Standard Cirrus, I have
briefed many very nervous pilots for their first flight
in this type. They are mostly only nervous because
of the scare stories put about by people like you.
They have all returned with big beaming smiles, asking
what all the fuss was about!

OK it has very light controls compared with the 'Yank
Tank' Schweizers that your CFIGs tend to fly, but as
long as this is properly briefed for it doesn't seem
to cause a problem. Ideally I would prefer pilots to
have had at least some previous experience in other
types of standard class gliders.

Regards,
Derek Copeland
--------------------------
At 03:30 22 March 2006, Eric Greenwell wrote:

>Please read this part again:'When a number of experienced
>pilots, some
>of them CFIGs, and some with thousands of hours, who
>have flown a
>variety of gliders,issue warnings about a particular
>glider, that rises
>above the level of 'scare stories'.'
>
>It's not just me, it's not just an anorak with 20 hours
>in a 2-33 that
>scares himself in his first flight in a Std Cirrus.
>That would be a
>'scare story'.
>
>> The Standard
>> Cirrus may not have quite the same modern safe handling
>> as a LS4 or a Discus, but any competent pilot should
>> be able to fly one quite easily and safely.
>
>That begs the question: 'any competent pilot'. Yes,
>someone that can fly
>it safely can fly it safely. My comments were to the
>less experienced
>pilot that might be able to safely fly an LS4 but not
>the Std Cirrus.
>
>> They also
>> have the advantage of costing a fraction of the amount
>> expected for these supposedly more desirable types
>> and are not that far short on performance.
>
>Yes, they are cheaper, and it's not just because they
>are older or have
>less performance. Cheaper may not be a good value for
>the less
>experienced pilot.
>
>snip
>
>> The only issue with all flying-tailplanes is that
>>they
>> tend to trail along the relative airflow. This means
>> that if you let go of the stick the glider will have
>> little stick free stability. If it is not perfectly
>> trimmed out, or hits disturbed air, it will slowly
>> enter an ever increasing phugoid which will not damp
>> itself out. However if you do remember to hold the
>> stick, this problem disappears and the glider will
>> be as stable in pitch as any other type, as long as
>> the cockpit weight limits are observed. How often
>> and for how long do you normally fly without holding
>> the stick?
>
>Not very often, but my Std Cirrus was the only one
>I didn't dare let go
>of the stick over about 80 mph. Have you missed the
>discussion of the
>positive feedback in turbulence from the unbalanced
>elevator circuit? My
>other gliders didn't have that.
>
>>
>> If you could be placed in a Standard Cirrus at 2000
>> feet and told to get on with flying it, you probably
>> wouldn't even notice that it had an all flying tailplane.
>
>I sure did in mine.
>
>> The only thing you might find out if you experimented
>> a bit is that the elevator loads do not change with
>> speed. This probably makes it unsuitable for aerobatics
>> unless you are very skilled at doing them, although
>> it is certified as semi-aerobatic. Best to regard
>>it
>> as a soaring machine, which it does very well. Standard
>> Cirri usually clean up in Club Class competitions.
>>
>> All the owners I know love their Standard Cirruses,
>> not least because of the light and precise handling.
>
>I did not love my Standard Cirrus, but I did like it.
>It's handling
>stunk compared to my ASW 20 C. What a difference! The
>designers have
>learned a lot since the Standard Cirrus was designed
>almost 40 years ago.
>
>

[Jack]

I read Mr. Greenwell's comments with the same respect I usually have
for his comments. I have to disagree with him on this one. Instructors
and some seasoned pilots told me what a man-killer a 1-35 was. With 27
total flight hours, I flew it, and I still wonder just what they were
referring to. I have 128 hours in a 1-35 and now own a PIK-20B...
ooooohhh... those nasty flaps! If I listened to every warning from
every misinformed person that doesn't like the subject glider, for
whatever reason, I would have never taken that first ride in a
Pratt-Reid so many years ago. Just because a guy or lady can be an
instructor doesn't mean he or she is an expert or even a good pilot.
Conversly, just because someone is a good pilot, doesn't mean that he
or she can be a good instructor. Stories about not having the elevator
hooked up and the like are very helpful, and they make us all more
careful pilots. Stories about the supposed bad behavior of a particular
sailplane model only damage our sport. I saw some recent, veiled
references to the 1-35 and it's supposed bad habits in Soaring Magazine
and they didn't print my reply. I think that's sad, especially for
someone that might really enjoy flying one, and for someone that has
one for sale. I have 1 flight of 2 hours in a Standard Cirrus. What a
nice ship it was... but then... I'm not in the habit of flying
hands-off...

Just my $.02 worth.

Jack Womack
Clovis, NM

[Bob Whelan]

Jack wrote:
> I read Mr. Greenwell's comments with the same respect I usually have
> for his comments. I have to disagree with him on this one. Instructors
> and some seasoned pilots told me what a man-killer a 1-35 was. With 27
> total flight hours, I flew it, and I still wonder just what they were
> referring to. I have 128 hours in a 1-35 and now own a PIK-20B...
> ooooohhh... those nasty flaps! If I listened to every warning from
> every misinformed person that doesn't like the subject glider, for
> whatever reason, I would have never taken that first ride in a
> Pratt-Reid so many years ago. Just because a guy or lady can be an
> instructor doesn't mean he or she is an expert or even a good pilot.
> Conversly, just because someone is a good pilot, doesn't mean that he
> or she can be a good instructor. Stories about not having the elevator
> hooked up and the like are very helpful, and they make us all more
> careful pilots. Stories about the supposed bad behavior of a particular
> sailplane model only damage our sport. I saw some recent, veiled
> references to the 1-35 and it's supposed bad habits in Soaring Magazine
> and they didn't print my reply. I think that's sad, especially for
> someone that might really enjoy flying one, and for someone that has
> one for sale. I have 1 flight of 2 hours in a Standard Cirrus. What a
> nice ship it was... but then... I'm not in the habit of flying
> hands-off...
>
> Just my $.02 worth.
>
> Jack Womack
> Clovis, NM

Forgive me, but it's a long, dank, snowy, week at the end of winter...

IMHO Jack touches upon a fact of soaring life inescapable for all who
fly single seat sailplanes, namely: at some point everyone who does,
must rely upon their individual judgment that it is safe for them to fly
a given single-seat ship.

As obvious and fatuous a statement that may seem to many, it's true
whether or not an instructor agrees with him or her, and it has
implications for every single-seat gliderpilot. We live in a world in
which the routine application of individual judgment helps us survive
(and sometimes not). Attempting to abdicate such reality may (arguably)
lead to a safer life, but in the case of soaring a genuinely poorer one
for most. How many flights would not be made, how many ships not flown,
how many growth experiences delayed or never experienced, all because an
instructor's judgment conflicted with a seeker of knowledge?

Instructors are human, and - in my judgement! - come with human foibles,
biases, skills and judgment. For better or worse - and mostly the
better! - we're stuck with relying upon their judgments for much of our
early training. But there comes a day when if we are to continue to
grow as pilots, we inevitably begin to rely more on our own judgment.
That's just a fact...whether it's good or bad depends on how sound our
own judgment is.

As a pilot who transitioned to flaps-only single-seaters from a 1-26 and
who has never flown any other types since, I read & heard then when I
sought ship-specific knowledge (and continue to read & hear) all sorts
of misinformation in the glider world - not merely about flaps - too
often presented as fact rather than opinion or judgment. We live in an
imperfect world, and I expect that sort of misinformation will be around
lots longer than I, so the circle is complete: it's necessary to apply
one's own judgment to information presented. The better instructors
will help their students understand the need to apply judgment and
develop the skills and confidence to do so, while not blindly or
uncritically passing along misinformation.

Tangentially (but not unrelated, in my view), safety in soaring is
'merely' another side of having fun. Whatever you choose to do, whether
legal or of sound judgment or not, if you have an accident while doing
it, it will be less fun than if you didn't!

Ideas have consequences.

May all your ideas prove personally rewarding, your skills up to the
tasks' demands, and your judgment sound.

Most of all, have fun!!!

Regards,
Bob W.

[Bill Daniels]

"Bob Whelan" > wrote in message
...
> Jack wrote:
>> I read Mr. Greenwell's comments with the same respect I usually have
>> for his comments. I have to disagree with him on this one. Instructors
>> and some seasoned pilots told me what a man-killer a 1-35 was. With 27
>> total flight hours, I flew it, and I still wonder just what they were
>> referring to. I have 128 hours in a 1-35 and now own a PIK-20B...
>> ooooohhh... those nasty flaps! If I listened to every warning from
>> every misinformed person that doesn't like the subject glider, for
>> whatever reason, I would have never taken that first ride in a
>> Pratt-Reid so many years ago. Just because a guy or lady can be an
>> instructor doesn't mean he or she is an expert or even a good pilot.
>> Conversly, just because someone is a good pilot, doesn't mean that he
>> or she can be a good instructor. Stories about not having the elevator
>> hooked up and the like are very helpful, and they make us all more
>> careful pilots. Stories about the supposed bad behavior of a particular
>> sailplane model only damage our sport. I saw some recent, veiled
>> references to the 1-35 and it's supposed bad habits in Soaring Magazine
>> and they didn't print my reply. I think that's sad, especially for
>> someone that might really enjoy flying one, and for someone that has
>> one for sale. I have 1 flight of 2 hours in a Standard Cirrus. What a
>> nice ship it was... but then... I'm not in the habit of flying
>> hands-off...
>>
>> Just my $.02 worth.
>>
>> Jack Womack
>> Clovis, NM
>
> Forgive me, but it's a long, dank, snowy, week at the end of winter...
>
> IMHO Jack touches upon a fact of soaring life inescapable for all who fly
> single seat sailplanes, namely: at some point everyone who does, must rely
> upon their individual judgment that it is safe for them to fly a given
> single-seat ship.
>
> As obvious and fatuous a statement that may seem to many, it's true
> whether or not an instructor agrees with him or her, and it has
> implications for every single-seat gliderpilot. We live in a world in
> which the routine application of individual judgment helps us survive (and
> sometimes not). Attempting to abdicate such reality may (arguably) lead
> to a safer life, but in the case of soaring a genuinely poorer one for
> most. How many flights would not be made, how many ships not flown, how
> many growth experiences delayed or never experienced, all because an
> instructor's judgment conflicted with a seeker of knowledge?
>
> Instructors are human, and - in my judgement! - come with human foibles,
> biases, skills and judgment. For better or worse - and mostly the
> better! - we're stuck with relying upon their judgments for much of our
> early training. But there comes a day when if we are to continue to grow
> as pilots, we inevitably begin to rely more on our own judgment. That's
> just a fact...whether it's good or bad depends on how sound our own
> judgment is.
>
> As a pilot who transitioned to flaps-only single-seaters from a 1-26 and
> who has never flown any other types since, I read & heard then when I
> sought ship-specific knowledge (and continue to read & hear) all sorts of
> misinformation in the glider world - not merely about flaps - too often
> presented as fact rather than opinion or judgment. We live in an
> imperfect world, and I expect that sort of misinformation will be around
> lots longer than I, so the circle is complete: it's necessary to apply
> one's own judgment to information presented. The better instructors will
> help their students understand the need to apply judgment and develop the
> skills and confidence to do so, while not blindly or uncritically passing
> along misinformation.
>
> Tangentially (but not unrelated, in my view), safety in soaring is
> 'merely' another side of having fun. Whatever you choose to do, whether
> legal or of sound judgment or not, if you have an accident while doing it,
> it will be less fun than if you didn't!
>
> Ideas have consequences.
>
> May all your ideas prove personally rewarding, your skills up to the
> tasks' demands, and your judgment sound.
>
> Most of all, have fun!!!
>
> Regards,
> Bob W.

Who says there isn't wisdom on RAS. Two great opinions in a row.
Congratulations Bob and Jack.

There are few bad gliders but there are many bad pilots, unfortunately.

Bill Daniels

[Marc Ramsey]

Jack wrote:
> I read Mr. Greenwell's comments with the same respect I usually have
> for his comments. I have to disagree with him on this one. Instructors
> and some seasoned pilots told me what a man-killer a 1-35 was.

Have you actually owned (like Eric), or at least flown, a Standard
Cirrus? The logic underlying your disagreement here escapes me (unless,
of course, you actually have a few hundred hours in a Standard Cirrus).
The reality is that there are people who make pronouncements based on
what they hear, and others who make them based on their own experiences.
Ignoring the latter, because of the former, is just plain stupid...

Marc

[Bruce]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>
>> I read Mr. Greenwell's comments with the same respect I usually have
>> for his comments. I have to disagree with him on this one. Instructors
>> and some seasoned pilots told me what a man-killer a 1-35 was.
>
>
> Have you actually owned (like Eric), or at least flown, a Standard
> Cirrus? The logic underlying your disagreement here escapes me (unless,
> of course, you actually have a few hundred hours in a Standard Cirrus).
> The reality is that there are people who make pronouncements based on
> what they hear, and others who make them based on their own experiences.
> Ignoring the latter, because of the former, is just plain stupid...
>
> Marc
>
>
Hi Marc

As a DG Driver may we assume you do not have "hundreds of hours in ASW20s and
Std Cirrus"? If so I assume you are one of those making pronouncements based on
hearsay?

Both the preceding posts contain wisdom. My first flight in a single seater of
any sort was in my Std Cirrus. Though the CFI and other instructors allowed me
to take the flight the responsibility for taking it was mine. Same with any
person making a first flight on type in a single seater. The famous inscription
at the Temple of Apollo at the entrance to the oracle of Delphi says - "Know
thyself" As Bob said, you are responsible for your own safety. Objective self
assessment is your only rational option.

A responsible pilot researches the aircraft he plans to fly, and prepares. But
if the vast number of vociferous critics out there are right there is not a
single glider out there that is not fatally flawed in some respect. Hell even
the LS4 gets criticism for its collapsing undercarriage. So you have to try to
be objective and filter the hyperbole and plain bull.

The statistics confirm that it is very seldom the glider at fault when things go
horribly wrong. Again from bitter personal experience, that white stripe down
the runway from a PIO on landing with the Cirrus cost about $100/metre. I got it
wrong, and the Cirrus got away from me - the wheel snatched when I braked, I
overcorrected - tip, bounce and bang. My fault - not the glider, blaming the
tool is the sign of a poor workman... It would be easier on the old ego to tell
tales of wild efforts to control an unforgiving etc. etc. airplane - Conversely
if you accept responsibility and learn from the experience you are better for it.

Best would be to avoid getting it wrong in the first place. Again, you have to
know what your capabilities are, and how they match the characteristics of the
glider.

I find it interesting to see the number of Std Cirruses flying decades after
production ceased - it has to have something going for it. Same with other
types. Any number of detractors, but the types popularity indicates otherwise.
--
Bruce Greeff
Std Cirrus #57
I'm no-T at the address above.

[Marc Ramsey]

Bruce wrote:
> As a DG Driver may we assume you do not have "hundreds of hours in
> ASW20s and Std Cirrus"? If so I assume you are one of those making
> pronouncements based on hearsay?

Actually, I have about 200 hours in various ASW-20 models, including an
ASW-20BL which I owned for a couple of years. You'll note I explicitly
indicated that I could not comment on the characteristics of the
Standard Cirrus, as I've never even sat in one and made glider noises.
The one thing I did say was with respect to my general dislike of
gliders with manual elevator hookups. We had recent accident here in
the US that indicates one can indeed take off (but not land) with the
elevator disconnected in a Standard Cirrus.

For your future reference if I say anything about the K-21, Grob 103,
ASW-20, Ventus B, Duo, LAK-17A, and yes, DG-101, 300, and 303, it is
based on anything from 50 to 300 hours of experience. I don't think you
can point to too many of my posts where I talk about about gliders I've
never flown. I just bought a DG-600 (a glider with a bad reputation,
BTW), so expect further pronouncements.

> Both the preceding posts contain wisdom. My first flight in a single
> seater of any sort was in my Std Cirrus. Though the CFI and other
> instructors allowed me to take the flight the responsibility for taking
> it was mine. Same with any person making a first flight on type in a
> single seater. The famous inscription at the Temple of Apollo at the
> entrance to the oracle of Delphi says - "Know thyself" As Bob said, you
> are responsible for your own safety. Objective self assessment is your
> only rational option.

Absolutely. My argument is with the notion that because one has had
good experiences with a particular glider, anyone who makes a few
negative comments must therefore be talking out of their arse, even if
they actually have as much or more experience in type. There is a lot
of personal preference at work here. ALL gliders have positives and
negatives. If someone asks, they need to hear both sides.

Marc

[Derek Copeland]

I do have several hundred hours in 2 Standard cirruses,
and although I can't say that I haven't had the odd
fright and even a couple of very minor accidents in
them, these have always been down to me getting into
stupid situations, rather than any fault with the handling
of the glider.

Any production glider will have gone through much testing
by its makers and then the airworthiness authorities,
to make sure that it is quite safe for averagely skillful
glider pilots to fly. The Standard Cirrus is no exception
to the rule. For quite a few years it was the 'bees
knees' standard class glider and it is still probably
the best 'Club Class' glider even today. Over 700 of
them were built between 1969 and 1985 and most of these
are still flying.

All flying tailplanes were a fashion in the 1960s,
as they avoided any drag from kinks between the tailplane
and the elevator throughout the speed range. However
it is almost impossible to properly seal the joint
between the tailplane and the fin, and it was realised
that you could get the same performance from a fixed
tailplane with a separate elevator, without the poor
stick free stability in pitch and the low stick loads
per g which characterised the all-flying tailplane.
However as long as you fly smoothly and don't let go
of the stick for long periods, I don't believe that
these are major problems.

The controls are all pretty light on the Standard Cirrus,
and I remember my briefing for my first flight on type
was 'If the controls feel as though they are not connected,
don't worry about it'. I didn't and instantly liked
it. The comfortable cockpit and the light controls
mean that you can fly it all day without getting tired.


Overall it is a classic glider and one of the few glass
single seaters that looks distinctive in the air.

BTW, there have been far more accidents caused by pilots
failing to connect the elevator on ASW19s and 20s than
there have been for the Standard Cirrus, which should
self connect if you put the tailplane on properly.
The secret is to set the trim fully forward and to
offer up the tailplane nose down so that the elevator
drive hook is engaged first. Then lower the rear and
operate the spring loaded catch. If you do get it
wrong the tailplane will sit more nose up than normal
with the stick jammed forward. This should become obvious
when do a positive control check.

Derek Copeland
------------------------------------------------
At 22:36 23 March 2006, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>Bruce wrote:
>> As a DG Driver may we assume you do not have 'hundreds
>>of hours in
>> ASW20s and Std Cirrus'? If so I assume you are one
>>of those making
>> pronouncements based on hearsay?
>
>Actually, I have about 200 hours in various ASW-20
>models, including an
>ASW-20BL which I owned for a couple of years. You'll
>note I explicitly
>indicated that I could not comment on the characteristics
>of the
>Standard Cirrus, as I've never even sat in one and
>made glider noises.
>The one thing I did say was with respect to my general
>dislike of
>gliders with manual elevator hookups. We had recent
>accident here in
>the US that indicates one can indeed take off (but
>not land) with the
>elevator disconnected in a Standard Cirrus.
>
>For your future reference if I say anything about the
>K-21, Grob 103,
>ASW-20, Ventus B, Duo, LAK-17A, and yes, DG-101, 300,
>and 303, it is
>based on anything from 50 to 300 hours of experience.
> I don't think you
>can point to too many of my posts where I talk about
>about gliders I've
>never flown. I just bought a DG-600 (a glider with
>a bad reputation,
>BTW), so expect further pronouncements.
>
>> Both the preceding posts contain wisdom. My first
>>flight in a single
>> seater of any sort was in my Std Cirrus. Though the
>>CFI and other
>> instructors allowed me to take the flight the responsibility
>>for taking
>> it was mine. Same with any person making a first flight
>>on type in a
>> single seater. The famous inscription at the Temple
>>of Apollo at the
>> entrance to the oracle of Delphi says - 'Know thyself'
>>As Bob said, you
>> are responsible for your own safety. Objective self
>>assessment is your
>> only rational option.
>
>Absolutely. My argument is with the notion that because
>one has had
>good experiences with a particular glider, anyone who
>makes a few
>negative comments must therefore be talking out of
>their arse, even if
>they actually have as much or more experience in type.
> There is a lot
>of personal preference at work here. ALL gliders have
>positives and
>negatives. If someone asks, they need to hear both
>sides.
>
>Marc
>
>

[Jack]

Marc,

You and I said about the same thing in different ways. However, I don't
agree that persons speaking from their experience will always impart
wisdom. I posted the truth, that I have 1 flight of 2 hours in a
Standard Cirrus. That has nothing to do with the meat of the matter. I
don't personally care for Jantars, but someone looking at one to buy it
has to figure out for himself/herself whether or not that ship is what
they want, and can handle. How does one go about that? I would talk to
several folks that have them, currently. If they all describe the same
thing that's likely to kill you, then you'd be foolhardy to buy it.
When I first flew the 1-35 I mentioned, all the nay-sayers were porch
sitters that hadn't flown it. How did they know whether it had bad
habits? The person that told me it's "just another airplane with it's
own traits" did me a favor. I was glad in a way that almost no one else
flew it, because it was a club ship that I could keep all afternoon. I
had a ball.

So, because you missed the point of my rant, here it is: Just because
you don't like something doesn't make it bad, or wrong for me. Just
because something's dangerous for you doesn't make it dangerous for me.
Just because something is beyond your skill level, doesn't make it
beyond mine. Yes, designs have improved, but that doesn't make the
older ones inherantly dangerous. Are there dangerous gliders out there?
Yes, absolutely, and especially in the wrong hands, and even more
especially with the wrong advice. The former owner of my PIK was told
to begin his first takeoff with +45 degrees of flap... what a surprise
he had! There are certainly gliders out there that I wouldn't fly,
because they are beyond my skill level. I know which ones they are. I'm
not bashing them here nor anywhere else.

I may be crazy, bit I'm not stupid. Stupid may be listening to someone
telling you of his experiences, while not telling you the whole story.
I read an account of a guy in a 1-35 that had an accident at initial
rollout. What I got from it was that he had no business in that ship.
Unfortunately, the writeup villified that airplane. That's just one
example of not getting the whole story. Eric was forthcoming with his
experiences, and is a well-intentioned gentleman from everything I have
read on RAS. I just don't think he's a good judge of whether or not the
original poster would be fine with a Cirrus or not. Only that person
can figure that out. And, whether or not I've owned a Standard Cirrus
has naught to do with that argument.

Jack Womack

[TTaylor at cc.usu.edu]

I was hoping not to feel the need to get into the usual All-Flying Tail
of Death thread that happens every time we bring up the Std. Cirrus.
As a pilot who's first personal glass ship was a Std. Cirrus, Serial
Number 17, I both learned cross-country in one but flew my two diamond
distance flights in it. Why is serial number 17 important? Because it
was the first Std. Cirrus George Moffat owned, so probably the one most
people have read comments on. It was suppose to have all kinds of
nasty habits that would kill the inexperienced pilot.

With a sane flight training plan I transitioned without much trouble.
I set a 10 flight, 25 hour minimum of local flying to get familiar with
the plane. I stalled it, spun it and most importantly learned to slip
it and land it at the correct air speeds.

The plane never dropped a wing without clear warning, flew beautifully
and was one of the best handling gliders I have ever flown. It would
land on a dime flown correctly. Just don't fly it 10 knots too fast
on final or it will float. The Std Cirrus will climb with a Std.
Libelle and out climb anything else I flew against. With a slip it
would groove a thermal and climb amazingly. It will run well and is
probably the best of that generation of gliders.

The only weakness was the inability to take your hands off the stick.
But you learn to fly that way, trim it very carefully at slow speed if
you need to take care of some business in the cockpit. Keep one eye
one it to see if it starts to wander in pitch.

It is light on the controls, but not severe. The wings are a crews
dream, some of the lightest of any glass ship. Rigs easily if done
with finesse, nearly impossibly if you try brute force. The tail must
be respected. Check and double check the connection and inspect the
guide bearings before each flight.

I logged 500 hours in the ship and loved every minute. She took me
everyplace a glass ship could and never had any bad habits. As a
graduate student on a budget my 1/3 of the ship was all I could afford
and I would not hesitate to recommend one to any competent pilot. As
PIC you must know your ability and take a positive approach to learning
a new ship. You must also fly often enough to maintain those skills,
especially when you are first stating to fly.

I went on to own the big brother and flew an additional 500 hours in
the Nimbus 2 (A model) with the same tail.

Tim
Ventus B (former Std Cirrus and Nimbus 2 owner)

[Bruce]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Bruce wrote:
>
>> As a DG Driver may we assume you do not have "hundreds of hours in
>> ASW20s and Std Cirrus"? If so I assume you are one of those making
>> pronouncements based on hearsay?
>
>
> Actually, I have about 200 hours in various ASW-20 models, including an
> ASW-20BL which I owned for a couple of years. You'll note I explicitly
> indicated that I could not comment on the characteristics of the
> Standard Cirrus, as I've never even sat in one and made glider noises.
> The one thing I did say was with respect to my general dislike of
> gliders with manual elevator hookups. We had recent accident here in
> the US that indicates one can indeed take off (but not land) with the
> elevator disconnected in a Standard Cirrus.
>
Sorry Marc - clumsy attempt at humour. I know you are experienced on a number of
types. Just did strike me that you were in danger of doing exactly what you were
criticizing...


> For your future reference if I say anything about the K-21, Grob 103,
> ASW-20, Ventus B, Duo, LAK-17A, and yes, DG-101, 300, and 303, it is
> based on anything from 50 to 300 hours of experience. I don't think you
> can point to too many of my posts where I talk about about gliders I've
> never flown. I just bought a DG-600 (a glider with a bad reputation,
> BTW), so expect further pronouncements.
>
>> Both the preceding posts contain wisdom. My first flight in a single
>> seater of any sort was in my Std Cirrus. Though the CFI and other
>> instructors allowed me to take the flight the responsibility for
>> taking it was mine. Same with any person making a first flight on type
>> in a single seater. The famous inscription at the Temple of Apollo at
>> the entrance to the oracle of Delphi says - "Know thyself" As Bob
>> said, you are responsible for your own safety. Objective self
>> assessment is your only rational option.
>
>
> Absolutely. My argument is with the notion that because one has had
> good experiences with a particular glider, anyone who makes a few
> negative comments must therefore be talking out of their arse, even if
> they actually have as much or more experience in type. There is a lot
> of personal preference at work here. ALL gliders have positives and
> negatives. If someone asks, they need to hear both sides.
>
> Marc
>
Agreed, listen to them all critically. Both sides, everyone tends to love what
they own, warts and all, and it is common to generalse a personal dislike or
inability into a design fault in what we are unfamiliar or unsuccessful with.

It just irritates me hearing all these arguments that eventually come down to
this urge to dumb things down to the point where the skill and challenge
disappears.

Many gliders are currently beyond my capabilities. I look forward to changing
the part I have control over. I also know the newer designs have better
handling, but their prices are also beyond me.

As an aside, the only DG600 owner I know is extremely content with his, flies
his backside numb and takes pains to point out the superior finnish compared to
my Schempp product. Hope you enjoy yours as much.

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