Maybe back to the LS4

[Jeff Runciman]

Hi guys,

Thanks again for all of the advise over the last few
months. I am now down to the Cirrus, Jantar, and again
the LS4. The only concern about the LS4 maybe the
condition of the gel coat. The Cirrus has a bit of
gel coat cracking, the Jantar has no problems with
the surface (poly paint). One of the problems with
purchasing a US glider is that there is no experimental
class so that limits me to unmodified gliders that
have an approval in Canada. Any advise is still appreciated.

Jeff

[Michel Talon]

Jeff Runciman > wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Thanks again for all of the advise over the last few
> months. I am now down to the Cirrus, Jantar, and again
> the LS4. The only concern about the LS4 maybe the
> condition of the gel coat.

Is this a real concern? Here in clubs at least, people could not care less
about the state of the gel coat. It has never forbidden a glider to fly, and
has very limited impact on performances. The LS4 is *the* standard glider
per excellence, easy to fly, reasonably good performing, if you cannot afford
a Discus. The only other (cheaper) equivalent option could have been the
Pegase, but not in the current situation.


--

Michel TALON

[Jono Richards]

I agree, having a good gel coat is really for cosmetic
reasons - and from a resale point of view. However,
dont be worried if the gel coat is not up to scratch
- you could always get the glider now (at a cheaper
price) and when or if you can afford a re-gel - do
it then! The LS4 is a fantastic glider and the gel
coat is not going to affect it in any significant
way other than good looks. You can usually get away
with just sanding down and touch ups of problem areas
anyhow.

JR

At 08:48 31 March 2006, Michel Talon wrote:
>Jeff Runciman wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> Thanks again for all of the advise over the last few
>> months. I am now down to the Cirrus, Jantar, and
>>again
>> the LS4. The only concern about the LS4 maybe the
>> condition of the gel coat.
>
>Is this a real concern? Here in clubs at least, people
>could not care less
>about the state of the gel coat. It has never forbidden
>a glider to fly, and
>has very limited impact on performances. The LS4 is
>*the* standard glider
>per excellence, easy to fly, reasonably good performing,
>if you cannot afford
>a Discus. The only other (cheaper) equivalent option
>could have been the
>Pegase, but not in the current situation.
>
>
>--
>
>Michel TALON
>
>

[GK]

Owain Walters wrote:
> I have not read your previous thread but if this glider
> is for your personal use then the gel is of very high
> importance. It will cost you a fair amount of money
> to have it re-gelled not to mention the hassle of arranging
> and losing your glider while the work is being carried
> out.
>
> I wouldnt touch a glider with crap gel unless it is
> at least the cost of a re-gel below market rate for
> a good specimen. Saying that, I wouldnt touch a jantar
> either. There is a saying in the UK about fat chicks
> - 'Like riding a moped, great fun until your mates
> see you'. Much the same as a jantar!

That moped makes Cirrus seem as rollerblades.

[Papa3]

Leaving aside mopeds and women of substance...

I went through the exercise of pricing used LS4s in the US about 10
years ago. I put together a little spreadsheet to make sure I
maintained some discipline during price negotiations. Basically you:

- Define a "baseline" aircraft and trailer combo. For an early 80's
LS4 in the US that was:
* Komet trailer.
* Basic xc instruments (in those days it was required instruments plus
becker/filser radio, M-Nav or equivalent, Winter mechanical vario or
equivalent)
* Airframe with no significant damage history plus gelcoat with some
crazing but no checking or major problems
* No parachute or tow out gear

I think I ended up with like 10 attributes to describe he baseline
ship. In those days, my recollection is that this priced out at around
$30 grand give or take.

- From there, I rated each one that came up against that baseline and
added/subtracted accordingly. For example, a crappy homebuilt trailer
might subtract $3,000; upgraded instruments might add $2,000, etc.

You'll quickly find out that gelcoat has the single biggest impact on
resale value, at least to knowledgeable buyers. The corollary is that
you'll NEVER recover the cost of a commercial refinish at time of
resale. At least around here you're looking at probably $20 grand at
one of the major shops, maybe $15 grand if you go with a local shop.
So, if you're even contemplating buying it and refinishing it, then
reselling it, be aware that you will lose money on the deal. On the
other hand, if you are planning to keep it a long time, then don't
worry about it. Or, if you have he skills and time to refinish
yourself.

Anyway, I loved the LS4 and could unequivocally recommend it. If
you've got budget issues, getting one that is cosmetically a little
less than perfect is a fine way to get the most performance for the
buck.

Erik Mann (P3)
Formerly LS4 driver, now LS8 driver

[nimbusgb]

Gel coat keeps the UV off the structural laminates and protects against
moisture absorbtion into the glass. In the UK I have had inspectors
threaten to ground an aircraft with gelcoat at the very early stages of
deterioration and I have had inspectors not even pass comment on
gelcoat obviously in need of serious attention. I would not turn down
an LS4 with a dodgy gelcoat but in todays market I would expect the
price to reflect the cost of rework. LS4's remain really sweet aircraft
to rig and fly and one of the most comfortable I have ever sat in for 7
hours at a time.

If you were prepared to aquire the necessary skills to do the repairs
yourself at the end of your first seasons flying you would save a
bundle and gain a heap of self-satisfaction.

Just my £0.02 worth

[Stewart Kissel]

Hmm, searching through some lengthy ras threads with
posts from whom I consider knowledgable glass-repair
individuals...this statement below does not seem to
be the consensus.

At 15:06 31 March 2006, Nimbusgb wrote:
>Gel coat keeps the UV off the structural laminates
>and protects against
>moisture absorbtion into the glass. In the UK I have
>had inspectors
>threaten to ground an aircraft with gelcoat at the
>very early stages of
>deterioration and I have had inspectors not even pass
>comment on
>gelcoat obviously in need of serious attention.

[Jack]

I started out looking for an LS-4. I was pretty adamant that I wanted
nothing less. I looked at another ship in Austin for a friend, as I had
to be there anyway. I found a PIK for sale, and though I wasn't
interested for myself, I looked for my friend. My friend wasn't
interested. It's owner made me an offer I couldn't refuse. So, for less
than 1/2 of what I was going to pay for an LS-4, I wound up with
similar performance, and NO GEL COAT ISSUES. the trailer isn't all that
great, but since I've had it, I've improved it. Refinish isn't nearly
so expensive, because all the old finish doesn't have to be removed. It
came with a good 'chute, L-NAV &GPS, O2 system, spare gear doors, spare
wheel & tire, spare tail wheel, etc.

My point is, be open minded. It could save you a lot of money. However,
If an LS-4 is what you have your heart set on, you may not be satisfied
with anything else. To thine own self, be true.

Whatever you get, I sincerely hope you enjoy it as much as I have
enjoyed my PIK.

Regards,

Jack Womack
PIK-20B N77MA (TE)

[[email protected]]

.. One of the problems with
> purchasing a US glider is that there is no experimental
> class so that limits me to unmodified gliders that
> have an approval in Canada.

I'm surprised by that statement. My LS-4 is rated Experimental,
purchased in the US and never questioned.

BTW, I've logged over 400 hours in this ship and love its every
attribute. Sure, the gel coat shows some checking, but knowledgable
people have assured me it in no way affects performance, and I haven't
noticed any changes, myself.

One suggestion. Wax the wings heavily and maintain the wax coat with
re-waxing several times a year. Besides UV deterioration, gel coats
fall apart due to moisture migration and regular waxing stops (or
nearly stops) both kinds of deterioration. I use paste wax for
durability, and this year I started with mold-release wax for a super
seal. It doesn't polish to a very high sheen, but it's tough stuff, and
sure seals the gel coat. Then I finished off with a second coat of
standard past wax.

[[email protected]]

I recall someone mentioning that the LS-4 could be going back into
production? I understand that DG took over the new model manufacture.
Any truth to this or just hogwash. There would have to be a good market
for a less expensive ship of older tech. but respectable performance
non the less?
Craig

[Derek Copeland]

As far as I am aware, the LS4 has never been out of
production. A version called the LS4b is (or at least
has been) made under licence somewhere in Eastern
Europe, and features fully self connecting controls,
unlike the original.

Derek Copeland

At 19:54 01 April 2006, wrote:
>I recall someone mentioning that the LS-4 could be
>going back into
>production? I understand that DG took over the new
>model manufacture.
>Any truth to this or just hogwash. There would have
>to be a good market
>for a less expensive ship of older tech. but respectable
>performance
>non the less?
>Craig
>
>

[GK]

wrote:
> I recall someone mentioning that the LS-4 could be going back into
> production? I understand that DG took over the new model manufacture.
> Any truth to this or just hogwash. There would have to be a good market
> for a less expensive ship of older tech. but respectable performance
> non the less?
> Craig

Its not build "somwhere in Eastern Europe" - here is a web site:
http://www.monte-baldo.de/Flugzeuge/Flugzeuge_Start.html
And for the new price you better of buying SZD-55.

[Marc Ramsey]

Derek Copeland wrote:
> As far as I am aware, the LS4 has never been out of
> production. A version called the LS4b is (or at least
> has been) made under licence somewhere in Eastern
> Europe, and features fully self connecting controls,
> unlike the original.

The LS4b (with self-connecting controls) was manufactured by Rolladen
Schneider, and they were still producing them in small numbers right up
until their demise. DG thought they had bought all of the assets of
Rolladen Schneider (by then called LS Flugzeugbau), but apparently
another company also thought they owned them. Much legal confusion
ensued, DG ended up with the design rights and molds for the LS8, LS9,
and LS10, plus the LS spare parts inventory. The other company
apparently ended up with the molds for the LS4b (and possibly 6). Last
I heard, the molds were supposedly at the Sportine Aviacija (aka LAK)
factory in Lithuania, but AFAIK, no new LS4b models have been produced...

[st4s03]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
Last
> I heard, the molds were supposedly at the Sportine Aviacija (aka LAK)
> factory in Lithuania, but AFAIK, no new LS4b models have been produced...

I heard that the LS4 is available for order through AMS and that they
recently delivered a new one in Europe. I haven't seen any pricing ,
but I am sure it's in the realm of the DG303, HpH 304 etc.

Peter