ASH 26E VS DG 808C [Archive]

Roger[_5_]

October 22nd 06, 05:27 AM

So which one would you choose today? The Antares is much more
expensive so that limits the market. What would you like in the next
generation of MG.

On Oct 21, 8:13 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Roger wrote:
> > Eric, some places fly all year and if the pilot is 200 - 250 lbs the
> > wing loading in a motor glider is near max.Have you considered a sustainer glider instead of a self-launcher? That
> removes 100 pounds or so. I've found my 18 meter glider climbs as well
> as a typical 15 meter glider that has less wing loading. Span loading is
> an important number, so don't go just by wing loading.
>
> > In the winter this means
> > the non-engine folks have a much easier time staying aloft, and the
> > motor glider in on the ground watching the pure gliders having fun.Start the engine, climb a bit, and go back to soaring. You will be able
> to do cross-country flights on the days the unpowered folk don't dare
> leave the field. The engine is your portable towplane, and even in weak
> conditions you might find, as I have, that you don't need it as much as
> you thought you would.
>
> Starting the engine might be the of competition or badge flight, but
> it's not the end of the flight or the fun. A few of my most memorable
> flights involved weak conditions and low cloud bases, but I had good
> soaring flights because I knew it wasn't going to end in a retrieve. Not
> that retrieves can't be fun, but after 20 years of them before I got the
> motorglider, my wife and I aren't missing them much!
>
> To the 26E, 808 list I'd add the Antares, and the Apis and Silent
> gliders (electric and gas versions). Lots more choices today than 10
> years ago.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation websitewww.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html
>
> "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org

Roger[_5_]

October 22nd 06, 05:29 AM

Eric, can you explain span loading as opposed to wing loading?

On Oct 21, 8:13 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Roger wrote:
> > Eric, some places fly all year and if the pilot is 200 - 250 lbs the
> > wing loading in a motor glider is near max.Have you considered a sustainer glider instead of a self-launcher? That
> removes 100 pounds or so. I've found my 18 meter glider climbs as well
> as a typical 15 meter glider that has less wing loading. Span loading is
> an important number, so don't go just by wing loading.
>
> > In the winter this means
> > the non-engine folks have a much easier time staying aloft, and the
> > motor glider in on the ground watching the pure gliders having fun.Start the engine, climb a bit, and go back to soaring. You will be able
> to do cross-country flights on the days the unpowered folk don't dare
> leave the field. The engine is your portable towplane, and even in weak
> conditions you might find, as I have, that you don't need it as much as
> you thought you would.
>
> Starting the engine might be the of competition or badge flight, but
> it's not the end of the flight or the fun. A few of my most memorable
> flights involved weak conditions and low cloud bases, but I had good
> soaring flights because I knew it wasn't going to end in a retrieve. Not
> that retrieves can't be fun, but after 20 years of them before I got the
> motorglider, my wife and I aren't missing them much!
>
> To the 26E, 808 list I'd add the Antares, and the Apis and Silent
> gliders (electric and gas versions). Lots more choices today than 10
> years ago.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation websitewww.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html
>
> "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org

Eric Greenwell

October 22nd 06, 05:41 AM

Roger wrote:
> So which one would you choose today? The Antares is much more
> expensive so that limits the market. What would you like in the next
> generation of MG.

It's been 12 years since I chose my glider, and I haven't kept up with
the details of the other gliders. So far, none seem to offer enough
improvement to make the effort to investigate them carefully. The
electric gliders are very promising: The Antares is expensive but high
performance; the electric Silent and Apis are much cheaper but with
lesser performance. Would I be happy with a smaller, cheaper, lighter
glider that's less trouble on the ground but not as long-legged in the
air? I don't know! I'd love to fly each of them for several flights...

>
> On Oct 21, 8:13 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>> Roger wrote:
>>> Eric, some places fly all year and if the pilot is 200 - 250 lbs the
>>> wing loading in a motor glider is near max.Have you considered a sustainer glider instead of a self-launcher? That
>> removes 100 pounds or so. I've found my 18 meter glider climbs as well
>> as a typical 15 meter glider that has less wing loading. Span loading is
>> an important number, so don't go just by wing loading.
>>
>>> In the winter this means
>>> the non-engine folks have a much easier time staying aloft, and the
>>> motor glider in on the ground watching the pure gliders having fun.Start the engine, climb a bit, and go back to soaring. You will be able
>> to do cross-country flights on the days the unpowered folk don't dare
>> leave the field. The engine is your portable towplane, and even in weak
>> conditions you might find, as I have, that you don't need it as much as
>> you thought you would.
>>
>> Starting the engine might be the of competition or badge flight, but
>> it's not the end of the flight or the fun. A few of my most memorable
>> flights involved weak conditions and low cloud bases, but I had good
>> soaring flights because I knew it wasn't going to end in a retrieve. Not
>> that retrieves can't be fun, but after 20 years of them before I got the
>> motorglider, my wife and I aren't missing them much!
>>
>> To the 26E, 808 list I'd add the Antares, and the Apis and Silent
>> gliders (electric and gas versions). Lots more choices today than 10
>> years ago.
>>
>> --
>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>>
>> "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation websitewww.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html
>>
>> "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org
>

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

Eric Greenwell

October 22nd 06, 06:12 AM

Roger wrote:
> Eric, can you explain span loading as opposed to wing loading?

Span loading = weight/span. I don't have a good technical reference for
it, but it accounts for aspect ratio effects to some extent. Consider
two gliders with the same wing area and weight, giving them the same
wing loading. The one with the higher aspect ratio, and consequently
lower span loading because the span is greater, will thermal better.
It's weight could be increased until they climbed the same, but it would
now have a higher wing loading and cruise better.

I mentioned it because it seemed likely you were thinking of 15 meter
ships flying around empty in the weak winter conditions at about 7.5
lbs/sq ft, and wondering how an 18 meter glider could possibly keep up
at 8.5 lbs/sq.

> On Oct 21, 8:13 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>> Roger wrote:
>>> Eric, some places fly all year and if the pilot is 200 - 250 lbs the
>>> wing loading in a motor glider is near max.Have you considered a sustainer glider instead of a self-launcher? That
>> removes 100 pounds or so. I've found my 18 meter glider climbs as well
>> as a typical 15 meter glider that has less wing loading. Span loading is
>> an important number, so don't go just by wing loading.
>>
>>> In the winter this means
>>> the non-engine folks have a much easier time staying aloft, and the
>>> motor glider in on the ground watching the pure gliders having fun.Start the engine, climb a bit, and go back to soaring. You will be able
>> to do cross-country flights on the days the unpowered folk don't dare
>> leave the field. The engine is your portable towplane, and even in weak
>> conditions you might find, as I have, that you don't need it as much as
>> you thought you would.
>>
>> Starting the engine might be the of competition or badge flight, but
>> it's not the end of the flight or the fun. A few of my most memorable
>> flights involved weak conditions and low cloud bases, but I had good
>> soaring flights because I knew it wasn't going to end in a retrieve. Not
>> that retrieves can't be fun, but after 20 years of them before I got the
>> motorglider, my wife and I aren't missing them much!
>>
>> To the 26E, 808 list I'd add the Antares, and the Apis and Silent
>> gliders (electric and gas versions). Lots more choices today than 10
>> years ago.
>>
>> --
>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>>
>> "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation websitewww.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html
>>
>> "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org
>

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

Kilo Charlie

October 22nd 06, 06:24 AM

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:JlB_g.416$ke4.139@trndny02...
> Start the engine, climb a bit, and go back to soaring. You will be able to
> do cross-country flights on the days the unpowered folk don't dare leave
> the field.

Ah Hah.....so you DO admit that having the motor is an advantage! ;-)

Casey
KC

Mike Lindsay

October 22nd 06, 01:52 PM

In article >, Marc
Ramsey > writes
wrote:
>> Plus
>> these designs are getting near the end of their life span, what would
>> you like to see in the next self launch glider?
>>
>
>Well, they could start by figuring out a way to sell them for less than
>I paid for my house...

When you think of the thousands of hours of skill labour that goes into
a modern glass sailplane, you wonder how they can sell them so cheap.
--
Mike Lindsay

Graeme Cant

October 22nd 06, 02:54 PM

Mike Lindsay wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Plus
>>> these designs are getting near the end of their life span, what would
>>> you like to see in the next self launch glider?
>>>
>> Well, they could start by figuring out a way to sell them for less than
>> I paid for my house...
>
> When you think of the thousands of hours of skill labour that goes into
> a modern glass sailplane, you wonder how they can sell them so cheap.

Then you look more closely at some of the design details and you begin
to understand.

....almost any water ballast system
....most self-launch engine installations

GC

Eric Greenwell

October 22nd 06, 04:31 PM

Kilo Charlie wrote:
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> news:JlB_g.416$ke4.139@trndny02...
>> Start the engine, climb a bit, and go back to soaring. You will be able to
>> do cross-country flights on the days the unpowered folk don't dare leave
>> the field.
>
> Ah Hah.....so you DO admit that having the motor is an advantage! ;-)

Admit? Admit? I've claimed and promoted that for 10 years! It's not an
advantage for everyone, however, as I discuss in detail in my "Guide"
(see below for a copy). I do a lot more soaring in a lot more places
because I have a self-launching sailplane; unfortunately, the cost
(mostly) and complexity of motorgliders keep plenty of pilots from
joining me. The electric powered gliders are addressing the complexity
issue, but the not the cost.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

Eric Greenwell

October 22nd 06, 05:04 PM

Roger wrote:
> What about the ablity with the 808 C comp to now fly at 10.4 Lbs verus
> the 26's max wing loading of 9.2 Lbs,

For most of my flying, the 8.2 lbs my ASH 26 E flies at is just about
right. I often take off early, so even the 9.2 lbs I could go to isn't
useful, and most flights seem to include a slow part where I might dump
the ballast anyway. Also, I'm too lazy to bother putting in water for
the slight advantage it might give, except at contests or speed record
attempts.

A pilot flying the eastern ridges might prefer the extra lb of wing
loading, also one that flew in areas with routinely strong conditions,
or flew only in the heart of the day, and didn't mind putting the
ballast in.

> the stearable tail wheel

The ASH 26 E has an excellent steerable tailwheel for hard/firm
surfaces. For with _very_ soft fields, I suggest using the
interchangeable fixed pneumatic wheel or using the tail dolly to move it
into position.

> and the
> ability to fill the gas tank from a truck or gas pump?

I've always found it convenient to fill from a 5 gallon gas can I carry
in the glider (as do most DG owners) using the supplied electric pump
(this can carried or mounted permanently in the glider). I've never
wanted to move the glider to a pump or have a truck come to it. If you
need to fuel the glider at an airport where a can is not available, you
can easily carry a suitable container. In 12 seasons and 500 flights,
I've never been in this situation.

> I too think the
> 26 is "prettier". Does the large canopy of the DG cause relection and
> leak when it shrinks do the the cold from altitude?
>
> On Oct 21, 7:05 pm, "bumper" > wrote:
>> I did a lot of comparing and spent another 2 hours going back and forth
>> between the 26E and the 808B. The comparing included talking to people who
>> worked on both these gliders, including Tom Stowers and Larry Mansberger (of
>> composite fame).
>>
>> I chose the 26E.
>>
>> Subsequent to this, about 4 years ago, I've had much more experience and had
>> the chance to really "go over" my glider, and look at the competition too.
>> Even with the "C" version now available, I'd make the same decision again.
>>
>> Of course, it's to be expected that an owner will tend to favor the machine
>> he has invested in - - I guess. The 26 is not perfect, but it's the very
>> best 18 meter self-launch available, both mechanically, and esthetically
>> too.
>>
>> bumper
>>
>> > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>>
>>> I know the comparison of ASH 26 VS DG 800's has been done, but now that
>>> DG has come out with a DG 808C I was wondering what self launching guys
>>> think? The new 808C allows wing loading of up to 10.2 Lbs compared to
>>> 9.2 for the ASH 26? The new DG also has NOAH exit assist and stall
>>> warning plus automated engine extraction and stowage. If you were in
>>> the market today for a self launch which one would you choose? Plus
>>> these designs are getting near the end of their life span, what would
>>> you like to see in the next self launch glider?
>

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

[email protected]

October 22nd 06, 10:22 PM

So we have heard form two ASH 26 owners. Any DG 800-808 owners want to
opine? I have heard the build quality is better on the ASH than the
DG, how so?

It seems to me that Western flyers would want the extra wing loading in
the summer. How do the cockpits compare between the DG and ASH? What
about sealing from the factory?

Allison

On Oct 22, 9:04 am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Roger wrote:
> > What about the ablity with the 808 C comp to now fly at 10.4 Lbs verus
> > the 26's max wing loading of 9.2 Lbs,For most of my flying, the 8.2 lbs my ASH 26 E flies at is just about
> right. I often take off early, so even the 9.2 lbs I could go to isn't
> useful, and most flights seem to include a slow part where I might dump
> the ballast anyway. Also, I'm too lazy to bother putting in water for
> the slight advantage it might give, except at contests or speed record
> attempts.
>
> A pilot flying the eastern ridges might prefer the extra lb of wing
> loading, also one that flew in areas with routinely strong conditions,
> or flew only in the heart of the day, and didn't mind putting the
> ballast in.
>
> > the stearable tail wheelThe ASH 26 E has an excellent steerable tailwheel for hard/firm
> surfaces. For with _very_ soft fields, I suggest using the
> interchangeable fixed pneumatic wheel or using the tail dolly to move it
> into position.
>
> > and the
> > ability to fill the gas tank from a truck or gas pump?I've always found it convenient to fill from a 5 gallon gas can I carry
> in the glider (as do most DG owners) using the supplied electric pump
> (this can carried or mounted permanently in the glider). I've never
> wanted to move the glider to a pump or have a truck come to it. If you
> need to fuel the glider at an airport where a can is not available, you
> can easily carry a suitable container. In 12 seasons and 500 flights,
> I've never been in this situation.
>
>
>
> > I too think the
> > 26 is "prettier". Does the large canopy of the DG cause relection and
> > leak when it shrinks do the the cold from altitude?
>
> > On Oct 21, 7:05 pm, "bumper" > wrote:
> >> I did a lot of comparing and spent another 2 hours going back and forth
> >> between the 26E and the 808B. The comparing included talking to people who
> >> worked on both these gliders, including Tom Stowers and Larry Mansberger (of
> >> composite fame).
>
> >> I chose the 26E.
>
> >> Subsequent to this, about 4 years ago, I've had much more experience and had
> >> the chance to really "go over" my glider, and look at the competition too.
> >> Even with the "C" version now available, I'd make the same decision again.
>
> >> Of course, it's to be expected that an owner will tend to favor the machine
> >> he has invested in - - I guess. The 26 is not perfect, but it's the very
> >> best 18 meter self-launch available, both mechanically, and esthetically
> >> too.
>
> >> bumper
>
> >> > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
> >>> I know the comparison of ASH 26 VS DG 800's has been done, but now that
> >>> DG has come out with a DG 808C I was wondering what self launching guys
> >>> think? The new 808C allows wing loading of up to 10.2 Lbs compared to
> >>> 9.2 for the ASH 26? The new DG also has NOAH exit assist and stall
> >>> warning plus automated engine extraction and stowage. If you were in
> >>> the market today for a self launch which one would you choose? Plus
> >>> these designs are getting near the end of their life span, what would
> >>> you like to see in the next self launch glider?--
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation websitewww.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html
>
> "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org

Andor Holtsmark

October 22nd 06, 11:22 PM

At 04:30 22 October 2006, Roger wrote:
>So which one would you choose today? The Antares is
>much more
>expensive so that limits the market.

I'd like to object to this comment.
Before you decide on an aircraft (or make comments
about their pricing), please get up to date offers
for all brands you would concider, make sure that the
offers include ALL the itimes you will need to operate
the aircraft, then look at the BOTTOM line.
The bottom line Antares pricing is competitive with
similar infernal combustion based products.

It must also be said that ALL sailplane manufacturers
offer an amazing amount of product for the money they
charge. There is a lot of idealism in the business.

Anyway, if you are seriously interrested in an antares,
then you are also more than welcome to make an appointment
for a visit to Lange Flugzeugbau, including a test
flight. Then you will know where the money goes. Contact
information can be found at www.Lange-Flugzeugbau.com

Cheers, Andor

(yep, I work there)

bagmaker

October 23rd 06, 05:47 AM

Just to add to the decision, can I ask which ship has the most upright seating position? I seem to re-visit my lunch the more reclined I am, so this consideration is important to me. The 26E/808C/Antares are my dreams too..............

bagmaker

Eric Greenwell

October 23rd 06, 06:28 AM

wrote:
> So we have heard form two ASH 26 owners. Any DG 800-808 owners want to
> opine? I have heard the build quality is better on the ASH than the
> DG, how so?
>
> It seems to me that Western flyers would want the extra wing loading in
> the summer. How do the cockpits compare between the DG and ASH? What
> about sealing from the factory?

Cockpit or the control surfaces?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

bumper

October 23rd 06, 08:23 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> So we have heard form two ASH 26 owners. Any DG 800-808 owners want to
> opine? I have heard the build quality is better on the ASH than the
> DG, how so?

This is best answered by really looking closely at these gliders. And if
you're considering buying one, then it may be best to take the time to do
this for yourself.

I had the opportunity to do that to a degree on the SSA convention floor. I
listed what I thought were the pros and cons of each ship to help me decide.
Still, I missed a bunch of stuff, like the robustness of the 26's main gear,
and many of the smaller things that I only discovered after really exploring
the ins and outs of my 26E after taking delivery.

Those that know me would vouch for this, I tend to be a perfectionist when
it comes to things mechanical. I appreciate things that have been made well
.. . . not just on the outside, but also beneath the skin.

BTW, advantages I listed for the DG 800 series included:

Much better factory web site.
More progressive factory, at least in terms of being willing to quickly
embrace new ideas and technology like NOAH and "Piggott hook".
Lower cockpit sides for ease of exit.
Two piece wings allow shorter trailer.

bumper

>
> It seems to me that Western flyers would want the extra wing loading in
> the summer. How do the cockpits compare between the DG and ASH? What
> about sealing from the factory?
>
> Allison

Gary Evans[_1_]

October 23rd 06, 02:49 PM

At 07:24 23 October 2006, Bumper wrote:
>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>> So we have heard form two ASH 26 owners. Any DG 800-808
>>owners want to
>> opine? I have heard the build quality is better on
>>the ASH than the
>> DG, how so?
>
>This is best answered by really looking closely at
>these gliders. And if
>you're considering buying one, then it may be best
>to take the time to do
>this for yourself.
>
>I had the opportunity to do that to a degree on the
>SSA convention floor. I
>listed what I thought were the pros and cons of each
>ship to help me decide.
>Still, I missed a bunch of stuff, like the robustness
>of the 26's main gear,
>and many of the smaller things that I only discovered
>after really exploring
>the ins and outs of my 26E after taking delivery.
>
>Those that know me would vouch for this, I tend to
>be a perfectionist when
>it comes to things mechanical. I appreciate things
>that have been made well
>.. . . not just on the outside, but also beneath the
>skin.
>
>BTW, advantages I listed for the DG 800 series included:
>
>Much better factory web site.
>More progressive factory, at least in terms of being
>willing to quickly
>embrace new ideas and technology like NOAH and 'Piggott
>hook'.
>Lower cockpit sides for ease of exit.
>Two piece wings allow shorter trailer.
>
>bumper

A couple of DG800 advantages that bumper overlooked.

1) An engine that doesn't cost $17000 to replace.
2) An engine that can be worked on with out having
to remove it from the fuselage. While this may not
seem like something you will ever have to do you'll
want to keep a couple of big friends around for spark
plugs changes. I believe there were at least three
engines pulled for one problem or another at this years
ASA Parowan camp. They also had their own cart to haul
the engines around for repairs but I'm not sure if
thats a standard 26 option.
3) A superior engine management system (DEI) with manual
back up.

IMO the engine related issues sum up the big difference
between these two ships as performance both in glide
and under power are way similar. The 26 has a smoother
engine and the 800 has one, which is easier and cheaper
to maintain. They are both state of the art ships and
you won't be sorry for buying either.
DG has done a pretty fair comparison between the 26/800/Ventus
2cM that can be viewed here –
http://tinyurl.com/yz4shs

HL Falbaum

October 23rd 06, 04:05 PM

I don't know about the '26 cockpit, but I have experience in the '20 and
'27. They are both quite comfortable for me, at 5'-10" and 200#. My DG800B
seems slightly narrower, but is wider than a LS-6. The DG forces a slightly
knock-kneed position, because of the wider pedestal. Ergonomics and finish
seem about equal.
I wish DG would approve some really good fuel hoses---I have just spent the
last 4 months trying to get the engine to develop full power. Finally, an
engine bay fuel hose gave up the secret, by starting to leak! Replaced it
and, viola, full power again! It spent 6 wk living with an A&P (approved)
mechanic until it was found.
The prop brake requires some attention to make sure it produces the needed
friction. Ordinarily, engine retraction is as simple as can be.
Handling is really nice---like a E series Mercedes Benz. No, it is not a
Porsche, but I'll bet the '26 isn't either.

--
Hartley Falbaum

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> So we have heard form two ASH 26 owners. Any DG 800-808 owners want to
> opine? I have heard the build quality is better on the ASH than the
> DG, how so?
>
> It seems to me that Western flyers would want the extra wing loading in
> the summer. How do the cockpits compare between the DG and ASH? What
> about sealing from the factory?
>
> Allison
>
> On Oct 22, 9:04 am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>> Roger wrote:
>> > What about the ablity with the 808 C comp to now fly at 10.4 Lbs verus
>> > the 26's max wing loading of 9.2 Lbs,For most of my flying, the 8.2 lbs
>> > my ASH 26 E flies at is just about
>> right. I often take off early, so even the 9.2 lbs I could go to isn't
>> useful, and most flights seem to include a slow part where I might dump
>> the ballast anyway. Also, I'm too lazy to bother putting in water for
>> the slight advantage it might give, except at contests or speed record
>> attempts.
>>
>> A pilot flying the eastern ridges might prefer the extra lb of wing
>> loading, also one that flew in areas with routinely strong conditions,
>> or flew only in the heart of the day, and didn't mind putting the
>> ballast in.
>>
>> > the stearable tail wheelThe ASH 26 E has an excellent steerable
>> > tailwheel for hard/firm
>> surfaces. For with _very_ soft fields, I suggest using the
>> interchangeable fixed pneumatic wheel or using the tail dolly to move it
>> into position.
>>
>> > and the
>> > ability to fill the gas tank from a truck or gas pump?I've always found
>> > it convenient to fill from a 5 gallon gas can I carry
>> in the glider (as do most DG owners) using the supplied electric pump
>> (this can carried or mounted permanently in the glider). I've never
>> wanted to move the glider to a pump or have a truck come to it. If you
>> need to fuel the glider at an airport where a can is not available, you
>> can easily carry a suitable container. In 12 seasons and 500 flights,
>> I've never been in this situation.
>>
>>
>>
>> > I too think the
>> > 26 is "prettier". Does the large canopy of the DG cause relection and
>> > leak when it shrinks do the the cold from altitude?
>>
>> > On Oct 21, 7:05 pm, "bumper" > wrote:
>> >> I did a lot of comparing and spent another 2 hours going back and
>> >> forth
>> >> between the 26E and the 808B. The comparing included talking to people
>> >> who
>> >> worked on both these gliders, including Tom Stowers and Larry
>> >> Mansberger (of
>> >> composite fame).
>>
>> >> I chose the 26E.
>>
>> >> Subsequent to this, about 4 years ago, I've had much more experience
>> >> and had
>> >> the chance to really "go over" my glider, and look at the competition
>> >> too.
>> >> Even with the "C" version now available, I'd make the same decision
>> >> again.
>>
>> >> Of course, it's to be expected that an owner will tend to favor the
>> >> machine
>> >> he has invested in - - I guess. The 26 is not perfect, but it's the
>> >> very
>> >> best 18 meter self-launch available, both mechanically, and
>> >> esthetically
>> >> too.
>>
>> >> bumper
>>
>> >> > wrote in
>> >> ooglegroups.com...
>>
>> >>> I know the comparison of ASH 26 VS DG 800's has been done, but now
>> >>> that
>> >>> DG has come out with a DG 808C I was wondering what self launching
>> >>> guys
>> >>> think? The new 808C allows wing loading of up to 10.2 Lbs compared
>> >>> to
>> >>> 9.2 for the ASH 26? The new DG also has NOAH exit assist and stall
>> >>> warning plus automated engine extraction and stowage. If you were in
>> >>> the market today for a self launch which one would you choose? Plus
>> >>> these designs are getting near the end of their life span, what would
>> >>> you like to see in the next self launch glider?--
>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>>
>> "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation
>> websitewww.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html
>>
>> "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org
>

Eric Greenwell

October 24th 06, 12:15 AM

wrote:
> I know the comparison of ASH 26 VS DG 800's has been done, but now that
> DG has come out with a DG 808C I was wondering what self launching guys
> think? The new 808C allows wing loading of up to 10.2 Lbs compared to
> 9.2 for the ASH 26? The new DG also has NOAH exit assist and stall
> warning plus automated engine extraction and stowage. If you were in
> the market today for a self launch which one would you choose? Plus
> these designs are getting near the end of their life span, what would
> you like to see in the next self launch glider?

Another place to ask this question is on the Auxiliary-powered Sailplane
Association's newsgroup at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASA-NewsGroup/

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

Rory O'Conor

October 24th 06, 10:14 AM

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/ash-dg-ventus-e.html

Subject: Re: ASH 26E VS DG 808C
Author: Gary Evans > <mailto:Gary Evans
>>=20
Date/Time: 13:50 23 October 2006
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/ash-dg-ventus-e.htmlDG has done a pretty
fair comparison between the 26/800/Ventus
2cM that can be viewed here -=20
http://tinyurl.com/yz4shs

stevehaley

October 25th 06, 02:27 AM

I bought into an 808B syndicate at the beginning of the year and from
the first flight it was love. Engine aside I still remain astonished by
its abilty as a pure glider.
I am a relatively low hours pilot (circa 300) and this was my first
SLMG and first time with flaps but the DG has been a relatively easy
transition. Things like the piggot hook have definately helped as it
means you can actually have a parking brake and dont need that third
hand while you do your rnup checks.
I am definately not of the smaller width being 220lb & 5.8 but while
the cockpit is not roomy in that there are not many places to store
stuff and I pretty much fill it width ways I have found it remarkably
comfortable. I have had 4 flights this year over 7hrs and 15-20 over
5hrs and felt fine at the end of each of them - far better than any
other glider I have flown.
The view from the cockpit is wonderful and far less claustraphobic than
a Discus or ASW24 - never noticed any reflections.
The engine management is simplicity itself.
The glider is very manouverable on the ground with the large steerable
tail wheel
Easy to rig due to split light wings.
I have been behnd the panels and to me the build quality is at least as
good as schemp/schleicher.
Only downside is the vibration that can cause component failure if
engine is idled too much but on the upside the engine does not run as
hot and can be stowed earlier.
DGs Manuals are by far the best I have ever had and are extreemly
comprehensive.

rgds
Stephen Haley

HL Falbaum wrote:
> I don't know about the '26 cockpit, but I have experience in the '20 and
> '27. They are both quite comfortable for me, at 5'-10" and 200#. My DG800B
> seems slightly narrower, but is wider than a LS-6. The DG forces a slightly
> knock-kneed position, because of the wider pedestal. Ergonomics and finish
> seem about equal.
> I wish DG would approve some really good fuel hoses---I have just spent the
> last 4 months trying to get the engine to develop full power. Finally, an
> engine bay fuel hose gave up the secret, by starting to leak! Replaced it
> and, viola, full power again! It spent 6 wk living with an A&P (approved)
> mechanic until it was found.
> The prop brake requires some attention to make sure it produces the needed
> friction. Ordinarily, engine retraction is as simple as can be.
> Handling is really nice---like a E series Mercedes Benz. No, it is not a
> Porsche, but I'll bet the '26 isn't either.
>
> --
> Hartley Falbaum
>
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > So we have heard form two ASH 26 owners. Any DG 800-808 owners want to
> > opine? I have heard the build quality is better on the ASH than the
> > DG, how so?
> >
> > It seems to me that Western flyers would want the extra wing loading in
> > the summer. How do the cockpits compare between the DG and ASH? What
> > about sealing from the factory?
> >
> > Allison
> >
> > On Oct 22, 9:04 am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> >> Roger wrote:
> >> > What about the ablity with the 808 C comp to now fly at 10.4 Lbs verus
> >> > the 26's max wing loading of 9.2 Lbs,For most of my flying, the 8.2 lbs
> >> > my ASH 26 E flies at is just about
> >> right. I often take off early, so even the 9.2 lbs I could go to isn't
> >> useful, and most flights seem to include a slow part where I might dump
> >> the ballast anyway. Also, I'm too lazy to bother putting in water for
> >> the slight advantage it might give, except at contests or speed record
> >> attempts.
> >>
> >> A pilot flying the eastern ridges might prefer the extra lb of wing
> >> loading, also one that flew in areas with routinely strong conditions,
> >> or flew only in the heart of the day, and didn't mind putting the
> >> ballast in.
> >>
> >> > the stearable tail wheelThe ASH 26 E has an excellent steerable
> >> > tailwheel for hard/firm
> >> surfaces. For with _very_ soft fields, I suggest using the
> >> interchangeable fixed pneumatic wheel or using the tail dolly to move it
> >> into position.
> >>
> >> > and the
> >> > ability to fill the gas tank from a truck or gas pump?I've always found
> >> > it convenient to fill from a 5 gallon gas can I carry
> >> in the glider (as do most DG owners) using the supplied electric pump
> >> (this can carried or mounted permanently in the glider). I've never
> >> wanted to move the glider to a pump or have a truck come to it. If you
> >> need to fuel the glider at an airport where a can is not available, you
> >> can easily carry a suitable container. In 12 seasons and 500 flights,
> >> I've never been in this situation.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > I too think the
> >> > 26 is "prettier". Does the large canopy of the DG cause relection and
> >> > leak when it shrinks do the the cold from altitude?
> >>
> >> > On Oct 21, 7:05 pm, "bumper" > wrote:
> >> >> I did a lot of comparing and spent another 2 hours going back and
> >> >> forth
> >> >> between the 26E and the 808B. The comparing included talking to people
> >> >> who
> >> >> worked on both these gliders, including Tom Stowers and Larry
> >> >> Mansberger (of
> >> >> composite fame).
> >>
> >> >> I chose the 26E.
> >>
> >> >> Subsequent to this, about 4 years ago, I've had much more experience
> >> >> and had
> >> >> the chance to really "go over" my glider, and look at the competition
> >> >> too.
> >> >> Even with the "C" version now available, I'd make the same decision
> >> >> again.
> >>
> >> >> Of course, it's to be expected that an owner will tend to favor the
> >> >> machine
> >> >> he has invested in - - I guess. The 26 is not perfect, but it's the
> >> >> very
> >> >> best 18 meter self-launch available, both mechanically, and
> >> >> esthetically
> >> >> too.
> >>
> >> >> bumper
> >>
> >> >> > wrote in
> >> >> ooglegroups.com...
> >>
> >> >>> I know the comparison of ASH 26 VS DG 800's has been done, but now
> >> >>> that
> >> >>> DG has come out with a DG 808C I was wondering what self launching
> >> >>> guys
> >> >>> think? The new 808C allows wing loading of up to 10.2 Lbs compared
> >> >>> to
> >> >>> 9.2 for the ASH 26? The new DG also has NOAH exit assist and stall
> >> >>> warning plus automated engine extraction and stowage. If you were in
> >> >>> the market today for a self launch which one would you choose? Plus
> >> >>> these designs are getting near the end of their life span, what would
> >> >>> you like to see in the next self launch glider?--
> >> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> >> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> >>
> >> "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation
> >> websitewww.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html
> >>
> >> "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org
> >

October 26th 06, 06:01 PM

Have not flown the DG800, just 300/500/600/1000. All those flew
nicely. One thing I found out about the AS-W26 is that it's a BEAUTIFUL
flying glider... Like an oversized 27, with perhaps an even more
comfortable cockpit. Coordination seems perfect (it has a big enough
rudder).
Mine has the heavier wings (they'll chase your friends away unless
you have a one-man rigger) but higher MGW and therefore higher maximum
wing loading. The lower serial numbers are also certified Experimental
in the USA, handy unless you're sending it overseas.
The LONG trailer is going to get my "lift kit" mod, a 2" square steel
tube between the axle and the trailer chassis. This helps with ground
clearance and is hardly noticeable for rigging.
Jim

Graeme Cant

October 27th 06, 01:13 AM

JS wrote:

> The LONG trailer is going to get my "lift kit" mod, a 2" square steel
> tube between the axle and the trailer chassis. This helps with ground
> clearance and is hardly noticeable for rigging.
> Jim

Thanks for that idea!

My 800 has one piece wings and a trailer longer than an ASH-25's. I've
been wondering how to help it over drains and speed bumps.

GC

Eric Greenwell

October 27th 06, 06:59 AM

JS wrote:
> Have not flown the DG800, just 300/500/600/1000. All those flew
> nicely. One thing I found out about the AS-W26 is that it's a BEAUTIFUL
> flying glider... Like an oversized 27, with perhaps an even more
> comfortable cockpit. Coordination seems perfect (it has a big enough
> rudder).
> Mine has the heavier wings (they'll chase your friends away unless
> you have a one-man rigger) but higher MGW and therefore higher maximum
> wing loading. The lower serial numbers are also certified Experimental
> in the USA, handy unless you're sending it overseas.
> The LONG trailer is going to get my "lift kit" mod, a 2" square steel
> tube between the axle and the trailer chassis. This helps with ground
> clearance and is hardly noticeable for rigging.

I suggest you tow it around for a couple thousand miles before making
any changes, as you might discover it's not so bad! I've towed my Cobra
trailer behind our 23 foot motorhome (which has a moderate overhang) for
100,00+ miles all over the country. The hitch height is set so the
trailer is slightly higher in the back(about 1"). The back end drags
occasionally going in and out of parking lots and gas stations, but it
doesn't harm the trailer because it's designed to accept that abuse. A
vehicle with a shorter overhang, like a car, mini-van, or SUV, wouldn't
drag it as often.

I did finally wear out those little aluminum skids on the rear end this
year, but replacements are on the way.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

Graeme Cant

October 27th 06, 01:58 PM

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> I suggest you tow it around for a couple thousand miles before making
> any changes, as you might discover it's not so bad! I've towed my Cobra
> trailer behind our 23 foot motorhome (which has a moderate overhang) for
> 100,00+ miles all over the country. The hitch height is set so the
> trailer is slightly higher in the back(about 1"). The back end drags
> occasionally going in and out of parking lots and gas stations, but it
> doesn't harm the trailer because it's designed to accept that abuse. A
> vehicle with a shorter overhang, like a car, mini-van, or SUV, wouldn't
> drag it as often.
>
> I did finally wear out those little aluminum skids on the rear end this
> year, but replacements are on the way.

I've towed mine for a little over 1000km and I've dragged the skids
somewhere each trip regardless of how careful I am about going over
stuff diagonally. Even if it does it nowhere else, it does it on the
drain at the entrance to the Club's field. :(

I'm stuck with a fixed tow ball height so I think JS's suggestion is a
good idea.

GC

>

bumper

October 28th 06, 08:11 PM

"Gary Evans" > wrote in message
...

> A couple of DG800 advantages that bumper overlooked.
>
> 1) An engine that doesn't cost $17000 to replace.
> 2) An engine that can be worked on with out having
> to remove it from the fuselage. While this may not
> seem like something you will ever have to do you'll
> want to keep a couple of big friends around for spark
> plugs changes. I believe there were at least three
> engines pulled for one problem or another at this years
> ASA Parowan camp. They also had their own cart to haul
> the engines around for repairs but I'm not sure if
> thats a standard 26 option.
> 3) A superior engine management system (DEI) with manual
> back up.
>
> IMO the engine related issues sum up the big difference
> between these two ships as performance both in glide
> and under power are way similar. The 26 has a smoother
> engine and the 800 has one, which is easier and cheaper
> to maintain. They are both state of the art ships and
> you won't be sorry for buying either.
> DG has done a pretty fair comparison between the 26/800/Ventus
> 2cM that can be viewed here -
> http://tinyurl.com/yz4shs
>
>

Gary,

I agree that performance wise they're essentially equal. On your other
points:

1) The 17K figure may seem a lot, however, the need to completely replace
one of these engines is quite rare. Replacing the Wankel's major engine
parts costs around $8K Euro. Those few cases were this was necessary were
most likely due to oil starvation and a Chernobyl type melt down. You do
need to keep oil in the tank and pay attention to engine temperatures.

Otherwise the Wankel, besides having small size which allows a narrow
fuselage, has excellent power density and vibration free smoothness. The
Wankel is also remarkably reliable and trouble free. The lack of vibration
means that stuff doesn't crack, break or fall off the motor and things
nearby - - a major positive attribute as compared to most 2-strokes.

I heard that two of the 26E engines pulled at Parowan where to replace
broken drive belts. This is an unusual occurrence, as the Wankel, with it's
multiple smaller power pulses per revolution, is gentle to the drive train
as compared to a 2-stroke. There was talk of a change in formulation used in
manufacturing the Gates Poly-Chain drive belts. AFAIK, the reason for this
breakage hasn't been 100% resolved/confirmed. I do know that some owners
have 150 hours and more with no drive belt issues. For the whole 26E fleet,
I'm aware of only the Parowan failures and one prior failure caused by a
bearing failure in one of the guide pulleys. Belt failures have occurred on
the 2-stroke powered ships as well, a backfire on start up will do the deed.

2) Yup, on my 26E the engine must be pulled to change plugs. There is a
factory mod that provides an access hole to allow plug service without
pulling the engine. It's retrofitable to my ship, but since I've never had
to service the plugs, I don't plan on adding this mod. Besides, the engine
package is easy enough to remove and can be done solo in about an hour
(maybe half that with good help). Remove 3 bolts, 3 wiring cable plugs, a
couple of Bowden cable connections (throttle and prop stop) and a fuel line.
A "cherry picker" engine hoist is needed if removing the engine solo. I've
only done this once in the 4 years and 23 engine hours I've had the ship,
but plan on doing it for the next annual just to look at things.

3) When shopping, I considered DG's DEI engine control a plus, but after
using the simple ILEC engine control, as used on the 26E and many other
self-launch gliders, I'm not so sure. To put away the prop on the 26E:

a- turn off ignition

b- when prop stops, engage manual prop-stop lever (this swings a rubber
stopper into the prop arc) and nose over slightly to windmill prop into stop
as viewed in rear view mirror.

c- push pylon switch down until prop just disappears from view in mirror
(this is the cool down position), at thermalling speeds, the additional drag
caused by the partially extended prop/radiator is minimal and still allows
reasonable climb performance.

d- In my ship, the cool down period takes 3 - 4 minutes. After observing a 2
C drop in engine coolant temp, push switch to retract prop fully.

Simple, reliable, almost no maintenance required . . . even a cave man
could do it. A DEI? Kind of like the automatic parking option on the new
Lexus - - why bother? (g)

I agree the most prominent mechanical difference between these two ships is
the power train. I do not agree that the DG's 2-stroke engine is easier and
cheaper to maintain. Given, replacing a 2-stroke engine is much less
expensive than replacing the Wankel. However, this needs to be tempered by
the fact that the Wankel will hardly need replacement if operated with
reasonable care and its on-going maintenance is usually less expensive.

After talking to Tom and Billy Stowers (High Country Soaring, and who have
worked on all manner of these ships), my impression is that the 2-stroke
maintenance issues they experience is an order of magnitude greater with
2-strokes than on the Wankel powered ships. This is also borne out by a
check of the relevant AD's. The ASH26E has but two airworthiness directives
(rotor cooling fan and muffler), both early-on teething problems that were
resolved years ago.

The many more subtle differences between the two ships are perhaps more
subjective. I talked with Larry Mansberger about the "beneath the skin"
differences between DG and Schleicher as I was not in a position to take a
chain saw and see for myself. Keeping in mind that this was several years
ago and the wing sections I saw were made prior to current DG factory
ownership, the innards of the Schleicher wing looked to be assembled with
the same care and attention to detail as the outer parts the customer
normally sees - - not so inside the DG wing.

Many of the DG's at Minden have gel-coat surface cracks on the wings,
commonly around the spoiler boxes. I haven't seen this on Schleichers,
though some earlier 26E's did show the wing spar profile after several
years - - later versions, my 2002 model included, have not done this - so
far. Subjectively, the 26E cockpit finish is nicer and ergonomics, even for
taller pilots, is excellent. The DG's pigeon-toed rudder pedals, when I was
trying it on, gave me foot cramps.

I've asked several DG800 series owners, on the Minden ramp, why they chose
the DG-800 series over the ASH26E. At the time, purchase cost was
essentially the same for either ship and probably is still close. By a large
margin the answer was availability, the delivery wait for the 26E then being
two years, more than double that for the DG at the time. For one DG owner,
the 800's two piece wing was a deciding factor (the 26E's one piece wing
means the trailer must be longer, at about 35").

All that said, owners of both these ships seem happy with their decisions,
and that's what really counts. My strong bias in favor of the ASH26E may
well be indicative of a underlying personality flaw (g), I have little
tolerance for things mechanical that could have, or should have, been done
better.

bumper

[email protected]

October 28th 06, 08:59 PM

In the Antares 20E, to extend and start the motor:

Push the power control forward.
10 seconds later you're under power.
THATS ALL.

To retract the motor:

Pop up the little mirror
Pull the power control back.
For your entertainment, watch the prop step to vertical and
disappear.
Put away the little mirror.
15 seconds later you're clean.

No cool-down cycle.
No prop-stop fiddling.
No multiple controls to operate.
No priming fiddling or "automatic" primer flooding.
No fussing with throttle setting to start.
No fuel valve.
No ignition switch to forget (laugh, but many times per year this
happens).
No starter button.
No engine master switch.
No extension/retraction controls.
No backfires.
No belt to break or adjust.
No manual pnuematic input switching.
No fun at all, eh ?

See ya, Dave
http://www.nadler.com

PS: You can leave the little mirror out if that's still too complicated
!

PPS: OK, its true, you do have to turn it on before you go flying.

Gary Evans[_1_]

October 28th 06, 09:12 PM

At 19:12 28 October 2006, Bumper wrote:
>'Gary Evans' wrote in message
...
>
>
>> A couple of DG800 advantages that bumper overlooked.
>>
>> 1) An engine that doesn't cost $17000 to replace.
>> 2) An engine that can be worked on with out having
>> to remove it from the fuselage. While this may not
>> seem like something you will ever have to do you'll
>> want to keep a couple of big friends around for spark
>> plugs changes. I believe there were at least three
>> engines pulled for one problem or another at this
>>years
>> ASA Parowan camp. They also had their own cart to
>>haul
>> the engines around for repairs but I'm not sure if
>> thats a standard 26 option.
>> 3) A superior engine management system (DEI) with
>>manual
>> back up.
>>
>> IMO the engine related issues sum up the big difference
>> between these two ships as performance both in glide
>> and under power are way similar. The 26 has a smoother
>> engine and the 800 has one, which is easier and cheaper
>> to maintain. They are both state of the art ships
>>and
>> you won't be sorry for buying either.
>> DG has done a pretty fair comparison between the 26/800/Ventus
>> 2cM that can be viewed here -
>> http://tinyurl.com/yz4shs
>>
>>
>
>Gary,
>
>
>
>I agree that performance wise they're essentially equal.
>On your other
>points:
>
>
>
>1) The 17K figure may seem a lot, however, the need
>to completely replace
>one of these engines is quite rare. Replacing the Wankel's
> major engine
>parts costs around $8K Euro. Those few cases were
>this was necessary were
>most likely due to oil starvation and a Chernobyl type
>melt down. You do
>need to keep oil in the tank and pay attention to engine
>temperatures.
>
>
>
>Otherwise the Wankel, besides having small size which
>allows a narrow
>fuselage, has excellent power density and vibration
>free smoothness. The
>Wankel is also remarkably reliable and trouble free.
>The lack of vibration
>means that stuff doesn't crack, break or fall off the
>motor and things
>nearby - - a major positive attribute as compared to
>most 2-strokes.
>
>
>
>
>
>I heard that two of the 26E engines pulled at Parowan
>where to replace
>broken drive belts. This is an unusual occurrence,
>as the Wankel, with it's
>multiple smaller power pulses per revolution, is gentle
>to the drive train
>as compared to a 2-stroke. There was talk of a change
>in formulation used in
>manufacturing the Gates Poly-Chain drive belts. AFAIK,
>the reason for this
>breakage hasn't been 100% resolved/confirmed. I do
>know that some owners
>have 150 hours and more with no drive belt issues.
>For the whole 26E fleet,
>I'm aware of only the Parowan failures and one prior
>failure caused by a
>bearing failure in one of the guide pulleys. Belt failures
>have occurred on
>the 2-stroke powered ships as well, a backfire on start
>up will do the deed.
>
>
>
>2) Yup, on my 26E the engine must be pulled to change
>plugs. There is a
>factory mod that provides an access hole to allow plug
>service without
>pulling the engine. It's retrofitable to my ship, but
>since I've never had
>to service the plugs, I don't plan on adding this mod.
> Besides, the engine
>package is easy enough to remove and can be done solo
>in about an hour
>(maybe half that with good help). Remove 3 bolts, 3
>wiring cable plugs, a
>couple of Bowden cable connections (throttle and prop
>stop) and a fuel line.
>A 'cherry picker' engine hoist is needed if removing
>the engine solo. I've
>only done this once in the 4 years and 23 engine hours
>I've had the ship,
>but plan on doing it for the next annual just to look
>at things.
>
>
>
>3) When shopping, I considered DG's DEI engine control
>a plus, but after
>using the simple ILEC engine control, as used on the
>26E and many other
>self-launch gliders, I'm not so sure. To put away the
>prop on the 26E:
>
>
>
>a- turn off ignition
>
>b- when prop stops, engage manual prop-stop lever (this
>swings a rubber
>stopper into the prop arc) and nose over slightly to
>windmill prop into stop
>as viewed in rear view mirror.
>
>c- push pylon switch down until prop just disappears
>from view in mirror
>(this is the cool down position), at thermalling speeds,
>the additional drag
>caused by the partially extended prop/radiator is minimal
>and still allows
>reasonable climb performance.
>
>d- In my ship, the cool down period takes 3 - 4 minutes.
>After observing a 2
>C drop in engine coolant temp, push switch to retract
>prop fully.
>
>
>
>Simple, reliable, almost no maintenance required .
>. . even a cave man
>could do it. A DEI? Kind of like the automatic parking
>option on the new
>Lexus - - why bother? (g)
>
>
>
>I agree the most prominent mechanical difference between
>these two ships is
>the power train. I do not agree that the DG's 2-stroke
>engine is easier and
>cheaper to maintain. Given, replacing a 2-stroke engine
>is much less
>expensive than replacing the Wankel. However, this
>needs to be tempered by
>the fact that the Wankel will hardly need replacement
>if operated with
>reasonable care and its on-going maintenance is usually
>less expensive.
>
>
>
>After talking to Tom and Billy Stowers (High Country
>Soaring, and who have
>worked on all manner of these ships), my impression
>is that the 2-stroke
>maintenance issues they experience is an order of magnitude
>greater with
>2-strokes than on the Wankel powered ships. This is
>also borne out by a
>check of the relevant AD's. The ASH26E has but two
>airworthiness directives
>(rotor cooling fan and muffler), both early-on teething
>problems that were
>resolved years ago.
>
>
>
>The many more subtle differences between the two ships
>are perhaps more
>subjective. I talked with Larry Mansberger about the
>'beneath the skin'
>differences between DG and Schleicher as I was not
>in a position to take a
>chain saw and see for myself. Keeping in mind that
>this was several years
>ago and the wing sections I saw were made prior to
>current DG factory
>ownership, the innards of the Schleicher wing looked
>to be assembled with
>the same care and attention to detail as the outer
>parts the customer
>normally sees - - not so inside the DG wing.
>
>
>
>Many of the DG's at Minden have gel-coat surface cracks
>on the wings,
>commonly around the spoiler boxes. I haven't seen this
>on Schleichers,
>though some earlier 26E's did show the wing spar profile
>after several
>years - - later versions, my 2002 model included, have
>not done this - so
>far. Subjectively, the 26E cockpit finish is nicer
>and ergonomics, even for
>taller pilots, is excellent. The DG's pigeon-toed
>rudder pedals, when I was
>trying it on, gave me foot cramps.
>
>
>
>I've asked several DG800 series owners, on the Minden
>ramp, why they chose
>the DG-800 series over the ASH26E. At the time, purchase
>cost was
>essentially the same for either ship and probably is
>still close. By a large
>margin the answer was availability, the delivery wait
>for the 26E then being
>two years, more than double that for the DG at the
>time. For one DG owner,
>the 800's two piece wing was a deciding factor (the
>26E's one piece wing
>means the trailer must be longer, at about 35').
>
>
>
>All that said, owners of both these ships seem happy
>with their decisions,
>and that's what really counts. My strong bias in favor
>of the ASH26E may
>well be indicative of a underlying personality flaw
>(g), I have little
>tolerance for things mechanical that could have, or
>should have, been done
>better.
>
>
>
>
>
>bumper
>
>
>

While the major 26 engine parts may cost $8k Euro a
replacement engine can cost $17k US as one unhappy
owner found out the hard way. I sure hope it isn't
a common problem, because that would bankrupt a lot
of people. I understand that a belt break which stops
the water pump results in almost instant over heating
which can fry the engine resulting in one of those
big bills but as long as you constantly watch the temp
gauge and keep one hand on the off switch that shouldn't
be a big issue. When two belts break at the same meet
however I would no longer call it an unusual occurrence.

Interesting that DG's engine management system which
automated the process beyond the 26 would be viewed
as unnecessary like the parking option on the new
Lexus. I guess that means that all development should
have just stopped with the 26. Hmmm!

Quote bumper ' My strong bias in favor of the ASH26E
may well be indicative of a underlying personality
flaw (g), I have little tolerance for things mechanical
that could have, or should have, been done better.'

I know for a fact that you have this flaw so it must
have been especially painful when you realized there
were so many areas for improvement in your 26. I'm
sure Kemp was exaggerating when he said you've made
1000 changes but exactly how many changes have you
made?

Ps. As I said before IMO both of these ships are good
choices but both have advantages and disadvantages.
Were that not the case one of these two manufactures
would have been out of business by now. You can measure
how well DG is doing by the sales volume and innovations.
I assume Schleicher is doing as well. You pay your
money and take your choice. I do suggest interested
buyers research beyond owners opinions as they (we)
tend to be a tad biased as you may have noticed.

Gary Evans[_1_]

October 28th 06, 09:15 PM

At 20:00 28 October 2006, wrote:
>In the Antares 20E, to extend and start the motor:
>
> Push the power control forward.
> 10 seconds later you're under power.
> THATS ALL.
>
>To retract the motor:
>
> Pop up the little mirror
> Pull the power control back.
> For your entertainment, watch the prop step to vertical
>and
>disappear.
> Put away the little mirror.
> 15 seconds later you're clean.
>
>No cool-down cycle.
>No prop-stop fiddling.
>No multiple controls to operate.
>No priming fiddling or 'automatic' primer flooding.
>No fussing with throttle setting to start.
>No fuel valve.
>No ignition switch to forget (laugh, but many times
>per year this
>happens).
>No starter button.
>No engine master switch.
>No extension/retraction controls.
>No backfires.
>No belt to break or adjust.
>No manual pnuematic input switching.
>No fun at all, eh ?
>
>See ya, Dave
>http://www.nadler.com
>
>PS: You can leave the little mirror out if that's still
>too complicated
>!
>
>PPS: OK, its true, you do have to turn it on before
>you go flying.
>
>

Thats way too easy like parking the new Lexus. The
more things you have to fiddle with the better.

[email protected]

October 29th 06, 01:58 AM

One question from someone who will eventually have a self launcher
The Antares quote range in vertical metres it can climb,
The ASH26 and DG808C have extra tanks that can increase range,
What would be the climb height expected from say a normal tank of 15
litres
for the ASH or DG .
gary
Andor Holtsmark wrote:
> At 04:30 22 October 2006, Roger wrote:
> >So which one would you choose today? The Antares is
> >much more
> >expensive so that limits the market.
>
> I'd like to object to this comment.
> Before you decide on an aircraft (or make comments
> about their pricing), please get up to date offers
> for all brands you would concider, make sure that the
> offers include ALL the itimes you will need to operate
> the aircraft, then look at the BOTTOM line.
> The bottom line Antares pricing is competitive with
> similar infernal combustion based products.
>
> It must also be said that ALL sailplane manufacturers
> offer an amazing amount of product for the money they
> charge. There is a lot of idealism in the business.
>
>
> Anyway, if you are seriously interrested in an antares,
> then you are also more than welcome to make an appointment
> for a visit to Lange Flugzeugbau, including a test
> flight. Then you will know where the money goes. Contact
> information can be found at www.Lange-Flugzeugbau.com
>
> Cheers, Andor
>
> (yep, I work there)

[email protected]

October 29th 06, 01:21 AM

wrote:
> One question from someone who will eventually have a self launcher
> The Antares quote range in vertical metres it can climb,
> The ASH26 and DG808C have extra tanks that can increase range,
> What would be the climb height expected from say a normal tank of 15
> litres
> for the ASH or DG .
> gary
> Andor Holtsmark wrote:
> > At 04:30 22 October 2006, Roger wrote:
> > >So which one would you choose today? The Antares is
> > >much more
> > >expensive so that limits the market.
> >
> > I'd like to object to this comment.
> > Before you decide on an aircraft (or make comments
> > about their pricing), please get up to date offers
> > for all brands you would concider, make sure that the
> > offers include ALL the itimes you will need to operate
> > the aircraft, then look at the BOTTOM line.
> > The bottom line Antares pricing is competitive with
> > similar infernal combustion based products.
> >
> > It must also be said that ALL sailplane manufacturers
> > offer an amazing amount of product for the money they
> > charge. There is a lot of idealism in the business.
> >
> > Anyway, if you are seriously interrested in an antares,
> > then you are also more than welcome to make an appointment
> > for a visit to Lange Flugzeugbau, including a test
> > flight. Then you will know where the money goes. Contact
> > information can be found at www.Lange-Flugzeugbau.com
> >
> > Cheers, Andor
> >
> > (yep, I work there)

Hi Gary - Unfortunately its a bit of apples and oranges.

The Antares has no noticeable density-altitude penalty,
so it can climb unaffected until around 16k where the
prop speed-limits and the climb-rate slows (and you
can't climb under power this high from sea-level). But,
it has less range than a gas powered machine.

A gas-powered machine may prove "interesting" at
Ely or Telluride (without turbocharger), but has more
range, especially with long-range tanks. Just don't
expect to climb over some of the peaks out west
when its hot. Its OK if you don't mind tooling
around Ely after launch not real high until you find
a thermal; certainly this is doable and plenty
including me have done so.

You have to pick which parameter is more important
for your flying (and don't forget to include stress level
as an independent and important parameter)...

Hope this helps !
Best Regards, Dave

PS: To emphasize Andor's point regarding cost, the
all-up delivered and equipped cost of an Antares 20E
is *not* substantially more than the other machines
discussed here, make sure to compare the real total
cost to your driveway...

Stewart Kissel

October 29th 06, 02:09 AM

I may have missed it on this thread...but is the cost
of these things a secret? I can go to Ebay and price
Ferraris and Maseratis.....

Can we safely guess somewhere between $150k-$200k?
Or put another way...
a new selflauncher=towplane, 10 year old glider and
hangar?

October 29th 06, 03:12 AM

On Oct 28, 7:21 pm, wrote:
> A gas-powered machine may prove "interesting" at
> Ely or Telluride (without turbocharger), but has more
> range, especially with long-range tanks. Just don't
> expect to climb over some of the peaks out west
> when its hot. Its OK if you don't mind tooling
> around Ely after launch not real high until you find
> a thermal; certainly this is doable and plenty
> including me have done so.

I operate my ASH-26E from an airport S of Denver that is at 7,000' MSL.
During the summer, density altitude is 10K or so at the time I launch.
The climb profile compared to a tow bekind a 250 HP Pawnee is quite
similar. I'm climbing at about 50 knots and behind the Pawnee it would
be 70 knots. So I'm actually higher about 1500' down the runway, but
about the same at the end of the runway (about 200' AGL on this 3800'
long runway) and typically 800' or so passsing abeam the departure
point on downwind. Actual climb rate is about 300 fpm. Check my OLC
flight logs for some comparisons as I sometimes take a tow in order to
have a full fuel load for the end of the day.

During the winter, I've still had a positive rate of climb at 16,500
while exploring for wave. In summer, I've made a few self retrieves
from the other side of 13-14K' ridges in the Colorado Rockies. With
the higher density altitude, I stop climbing at about 15K. I only have
the fuselage tank (16 litres), so endurance is about 90 minutes.

So the bottom line is that at high altitudes, either physically, or due
to density, one must use whatever thermals there are, and try to avoid
areas of sink. But so far, in the 5 years I've been flying the ship
there has never been a situation where I wished for more power.

-Tom
ASH-26E 5Z
Black Forest Soaring Society - for OLC logs

Eric Greenwell

October 29th 06, 03:35 AM

Gary Evans wrote:

[discussing the cost of a total engine replacement]
> While the major 26 engine parts may cost $8k Euro a
> replacement engine can cost $17k US as one unhappy
> owner found out the hard way. I sure hope it isn't
> a common problem, because that would bankrupt a lot
> of people.

A replacement Solo engine costs about $8K, according to the DG dealer.
If I were looking at buying one of these gliders and wanted to factor in
the potential for a total engine replacement, I'd add $1K to $2K to
price of the ASH 26 E, and use that number in my considerations. I
wouldn't add the whole $9K difference because I think it's unlikely I'd
need to replace engine, but a prospective owner should choose whatever
amount he can be comfortable with.

> I understand that a belt break which stops
> the water pump results in almost instant over heating
> which can fry the engine resulting in one of those
> big bills but as long as you constantly watch the temp
> gauge and keep one hand on the off switch that shouldn't
> be a big issue. When two belts break at the same meet
> however I would no longer call it an unusual occurrence.

The belts that broke at the Parowan camp were the propeller drive belts,
not the fan belt (the water pump is driven directly by the engine - no
belt). The drive belts on the 26 E fleet did not break for many years
(for example, mine is 12 years old and has 114 hours on it), but a few
of newest gliders have had this happen. We've been told that Gates, the
belt manufacturer, changed the construction of the belts about three
years ago, and the consequences of that change are now surfacing.

Schleicher tells us they will correct this situation. In the meantime,
pilots are cautioned to use the handbook procedure for starting the
engine, and avoid "pumping" the throttle or the primer when the engine
is running slowly. So far, there haven't been any belts break during an
in-flight restart.

As not all may know, some of the Solo engine systems have also suffered
from propeller drive belts breaking, and Ventus/Nimbus self-launchers
had (perhaps still have) a 20 hour life limit on the belt. I don't know
the exact situation for DG, but they had similar problems. It's my
understanding there are also changes in their starting procedure that
reduce the problem, and some mechanical changes that may/will eliminate
the problem. Gary can inform us on this.

Fortunately, the Solo belt breakage was also always on the ground and
not in the air (to my knowledge).

> Interesting that DG's engine management system which
> automated the process beyond the 26 would be viewed
> as unnecessary like the parking option on the new
> Lexus. I guess that means that all development should
> have just stopped with the 26. Hmmm!

As a former electrical engineer that used to help automate processes,
I'm all in favor of automation; however, the 26 E system is so simple
and reliable, I've not wanted Schleicher to change it.

> Ps. As I said before IMO both of these ships are good
> choices but both have advantages and disadvantages.
> Were that not the case one of these two manufactures
> would have been out of business by now. You can measure
> how well DG is doing by the sales volume and innovations.
> I assume Schleicher is doing as well. You pay your
> money and take your choice. I do suggest interested
> buyers research beyond owners opinions as they (we)
> tend to be a tad biased as you may have noticed.

A big problem is it's rare for a pilot to have significant time in BOTH
gliders, so he can offer an informed comparison. I urge any prospective
owner that is interested in a particular glider but concerned (or
particularly interested) about some aspect of it to discuss it with the
dealer, and ultimately with factory if the dealer's response isn't
enough. These are low volume manufacturers providing expensive, complex
machines, so you are more like a partner in the operation than just a
customer walking out of Wal-Mart with a toaster under your arm.

I've had these conversations with Schleicher over 20 years of owning
first an ASW 20 and now the ASH 26 E, so I've got a lot of confidence in
the ability and will of the people at Schleicher to provide a good
glider, and to make things right if they go wrong. That's the bias on my
part, because I'm not nearly so familiar with the crew at DG. DG pilots
likely have the opposite experience.

So, talk to the owners, the dealer, the factory, maybe the folks that
repair them, look carefully at the glider (and be sure to sit in it),
and consider that you'll probably be happy with your choice because you
won't know what you missed!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

October 29th 06, 03:45 AM

On Oct 28, 2:12 pm, Gary Evans >
wrote:
> While the major 26 engine parts may cost $8k Euro a
> replacement engine can cost $17k US as one unhappy
> owner found out the hard way. I sure hope it isn't
> a common problem, because that would bankrupt a lot
> of people.

Proper maintenance and adherance to operationg procedures are likely
all that is needed to prevent an engine replacement. Consider the cost
of an annual inspection of a typical airplane with a 150 or so HP
Lycoming or Continental engine. I choose to pull the engine on my '26E
at each annual so we can inspect and clean it with some cleanser and
rags. I also clean out the engine bay. This adds about 4 hours to the
inspection, but it still takes less than a day.

> When two belts break at the same meet
> however I would no longer call it an unusual occurrence.

Both these ships had less than 10 hours on the belt/engine. As Bumper
said, it appears that Gates "improved" the belt for its typicall
application, but this change somehow made it more "brittle" in the
Schleicher installation. The problem is under investigation, but I
don't know the current state.

> Interesting that DG's engine management system which
> automated the process beyond the 26 would be viewed
> as unnecessary like the parking option on the new
> Lexus. I guess that means that all development should
> have just stopped with the 26. Hmmm!

I doubt it... My wife and I have manual transmissions on our crew
truck as well as our daily cars, and IMP, the DEI provides about as
much perceived improvement as an automatic transmission would. I also
think that Schleicher would rather not spend time and MONEY making
minor changes that require regulatory approvals. There are a fw simple
things that could be dont to the ILEC controller, but I understand that
even a firmware update to add a new feature is an expensive
proposition.

> I know for a fact that you have this flaw so it must
> have been especially painful when you realized there
> were so many areas for improvement in your 26. I'm
> sure Kemp was exaggerating when he said you've made
> 1000 changes but exactly how many changes have you
> made?

>From what I've gleaned in various email posts he's made to our owners
mailing list, most of the changes are very minor - which include the
quiet vent, super yawstring, something similar to the Piggott hook,
revolution counter to better keep track of oil consumption, and
improved springs for the steerable tailwheel. He's also rigged a neat
pneumatic switch, and built a special dolly for towing the ship
sideways from his hangar to the runway.

> Ps. As I said before IMO both of these ships are good
> choices but both have advantages and disadvantages.
> Were that not the case one of these two manufactures
> would have been out of business by now. You can measure
> how well DG is doing by the sales volume and innovations.
> I assume Schleicher is doing as well. You pay your
> money and take your choice. I do suggest interested
> buyers research beyond owners opinions as they (we)
> tend to be a tad biased as you may have noticed.

Absolutely!

-Tom

October 29th 06, 03:51 AM

On Oct 28, 8:09 pm, Stewart Kissel
> wrote:
> Or put another way...
> a new selflauncher=towplane, 10 year old glider and hangar?

Unfortunately, the dollar is doing poorly against the euro... I hear a
new ASH-26E ready to fly with instruments and Cobra trailer is pushing
$200K. Just the trailer will buy a decent used sailplane...

But, in the last 22 years, I've owned 2 other sailplanes, and was able
to sell each for the same amount as I had originally paid. So the real
cost of owning such a ship is pretty much insurance and maintenance, as
the purchase price can generally be recoveredduring the sale of the
ship.

-Tom

Eric Greenwell

October 29th 06, 04:21 AM

5Z wrote:
>
> On Oct 28, 8:09 pm, Stewart Kissel
> > wrote:
>> Or put another way...
>> a new selflauncher=towplane, 10 year old glider and hangar?
>
> Unfortunately, the dollar is doing poorly against the euro... I hear a
> new ASH-26E ready to fly with instruments and Cobra trailer is pushing
> $200K. Just the trailer will buy a decent used sailplane...
>
> But, in the last 22 years, I've owned 2 other sailplanes, and was able
> to sell each for the same amount as I had originally paid. So the real
> cost of owning such a ship is pretty much insurance and maintenance, as
> the purchase price can generally be recoveredduring the sale of the
> ship.

If you don't require a 50:1, 18 meter self-launcher, but could be happy
with a 40:1 15 meter self-launcher, take a look at the Apis and Silent
offerings, which were under $100K the last time I looked. For a two
seater, the Taurus looks attractive, but it's more money (not $200K
though!).

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

Gary Evans[_1_]

October 29th 06, 02:56 PM

At 03:36 29 October 2006, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>The belts that broke at the Parowan camp were the propeller
>drive belts,
>not the fan belt (the water pump is driven directly
>by the engine - no
>belt). The drive belts on the 26 E fleet did not break
>for many years
>(for example, mine is 12 years old and has 114 hours
>on it), but a few
>of newest gliders have had this happen. We've been
>told that Gates, the
>belt manufacturer, changed the construction of the
>belts about three
>years ago, and the consequences of that change are
>now surfacing.
>
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>'Transponders in Sailplanes' on the Soaring Safety
>Foundation website
> www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html
>
>'A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation' at
>www.motorglider.org
>

The Gates Poly Chain belts are the best you can buy
and in properly designed drives will last a long long
time as demonstrated by their use for driving camshafts
in automobiles for 100,000 miles. In spite of their
strength they have been broken in both DG and ASH drive
systems but possibly for different reasons. What the
belts do not like are shock loads and the internal
cords can easily be damaged by something as simple
as improper storage.
The belt failures on DG’s are thought to be caused
by shock loads imposed during starting/low rpm where
the power pulses are most uneven. On the DG's the best
prevention is to minimize the shock loads by getting
past the low rpm phase as quickly as possible and optimizing
cold start fuel delivery.

The ASH failures may be due to another problem that
being storage. The gates preventive maintenance manual
clearly states that the stored belts should not be
subjected to bending beyond that which is defined as
the minimum pulley diameter as it may damage internal
cording resulting in premature failure.
The belts are obviously designed to be used in a straight
line without twisting which may be the reason why twisting
is not specifically identified as something to be avoided
in the Gates manual.
The ASH drive system puts a 90-degree bend into the
belts when the engine is stowed into a relatively hot
environment. If you explained these failures to a Gates
engineer and showed them the drive design they may
point out that twisting in heated storage could be
a contributing factor.

See we do have some things in common.

Eric Greenwell

October 29th 06, 03:48 PM

Gary Evans wrote:

> The ASH failures may be due to another problem that
> being storage. The gates preventive maintenance manual
> clearly states that the stored belts should not be
> subjected to bending beyond that which is defined as
> the minimum pulley diameter as it may damage internal
> cording resulting in premature failure.
> The belts are obviously designed to be used in a straight
> line without twisting which may be the reason why twisting
> is not specifically identified as something to be avoided
> in the Gates manual.
> The ASH drive system puts a 90-degree bend into the
> belts when the engine is stowed into a relatively hot
> environment. If you explained these failures to a Gates
> engineer and showed them the drive design they may
> point out that twisting in heated storage could be
> a contributing factor.

I have no knowledge of what Schleicher's discussions with Gates have
been; however, the ASH belt breaking problem is a recent one. Older
belts don't break - it's the NEW belts that are breaking. My belt is 12
years old, the engine has 114 hours on it, and at least 600 starts. When
I discussed belt life with Martin Heide (the "H" in ASH) about 3 years
ago (which was before the current problem), he said several 26 Es had
been in the shop for the 250 hour motor inspection, and all belts were
in good condition.

It could be the twisting has become a problem due to the change in belt
construction that Schleicher says has caused the recent problems, but I
doubt it. When a belt breaks with only 5 or 10 hours on it, it doesn't
seem long enough for degradation to occur. I suspect the culprit is also
shock loading, but that's speculation on my part, since I haven't
discussed it with the factory or Gates.

In any case, a prospective buyer might want to discuss the issue with
Schleicher, and remember that a glider ordered now won't be delivered
for many months, during which the problem is likely to be solved, if it
isn't already.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

[email protected]

October 29th 06, 06:26 PM

wrote:
> In the Antares 20E, to extend and start the motor:
>
> Push the power control forward.
> 10 seconds later you're under power.
> THATS ALL.
>
> To retract the motor:
>
> Pop up the little mirror
> Pull the power control back.
> For your entertainment, watch the prop step to vertical and
> disappear.
> Put away the little mirror.
> 15 seconds later you're clean.
>
> No cool-down cycle.
> No prop-stop fiddling.
> No multiple controls to operate.
> No priming fiddling or "automatic" primer flooding.
> No fussing with throttle setting to start.
> No fuel valve.
> No ignition switch to forget (laugh, but many times per year this
> happens).
> No starter button.
> No engine master switch.
> No extension/retraction controls.
> No backfires.
> No belt to break or adjust.
> No manual pnuematic input switching.
> No fun at all, eh ?
>
> See ya, Dave
> http://www.nadler.com
>
> PS: You can leave the little mirror out if that's still too complicated
> !
>
> PPS: OK, its true, you do have to turn it on before you go flying.

PS: It was pointed out that I forgot:

NO GASOLINE AND NO GASOLINE FUMES !

See ya, Dave

October 29th 06, 11:57 PM

wrote:
>
> NO GASOLINE AND NO GASOLINE FUMES !
>

I hope the batteries arent made by Sony!
Antares has been a long time coming. Looking forward to seeing and
maybe flying one.
But for the moment am happy with what an Australian friend calls a
"stink glider".
Jim

HL Falbaum

October 30th 06, 12:24 AM

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:B341h.1741$B44.1220@trndny07...
> Gary Evans wrote:
>
>> The ASH failures may be due to another problem that
>> being storage. The gates preventive maintenance manual
>> clearly states that the stored belts should not be
>> subjected to bending beyond that which is defined as
>> the minimum pulley diameter as it may damage internal
>> cording resulting in premature failure.
>> The belts are obviously designed to be used in a straight
>> line without twisting which may be the reason why twisting
>> is not specifically identified as something to be avoided
>> in the Gates manual.
>> The ASH drive system puts a 90-degree bend into the
>> belts when the engine is stowed into a relatively hot
>> environment. If you explained these failures to a Gates
>> engineer and showed them the drive design they may
>> point out that twisting in heated storage could be
>> a contributing factor.
>
> I have no knowledge of what Schleicher's discussions with Gates have been;
> however, the ASH belt breaking problem is a recent one. Older belts don't
> break - it's the NEW belts that are breaking. My belt is 12 years old, the
> engine has 114 hours on it, and at least 600 starts. When I discussed belt
> life with Martin Heide (the "H" in ASH) about 3 years ago (which was
> before the current problem), he said several 26 Es had been in the shop
> for the 250 hour motor inspection, and all belts were in good condition.
>
> It could be the twisting has become a problem due to the change in belt
> construction that Schleicher says has caused the recent problems, but I
> doubt it. When a belt breaks with only 5 or 10 hours on it, it doesn't
> seem long enough for degradation to occur. I suspect the culprit is also
> shock loading, but that's speculation on my part, since I haven't
> discussed it with the factory or Gates.
>
> In any case, a prospective buyer might want to discuss the issue with
> Schleicher, and remember that a glider ordered now won't be delivered for
> many months, during which the problem is likely to be solved, if it isn't
> already.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
> www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html
>
> "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Is the ASH-26 a Walter Binder installation design?
It seems so different than the other Retract-Engine Sailplanes.

Hartley Falbaum
DG800B "KF"

[email protected]

October 30th 06, 02:03 AM

HL Falbaum wrote:
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> news:B341h.1741$B44.1220@trndny07...
> > Gary Evans wrote:
> >
> >> The ASH failures may be due to another problem that
> >> being storage. The gates preventive maintenance manual
> >> clearly states that the stored belts should not be
> >> subjected to bending beyond that which is defined as
> >> the minimum pulley diameter as it may damage internal
> >> cording resulting in premature failure.
> >> The belts are obviously designed to be used in a straight
> >> line without twisting which may be the reason why twisting
> >> is not specifically identified as something to be avoided
> >> in the Gates manual.
> >> The ASH drive system puts a 90-degree bend into the
> >> belts when the engine is stowed into a relatively hot
> >> environment. If you explained these failures to a Gates
> >> engineer and showed them the drive design they may
> >> point out that twisting in heated storage could be
> >> a contributing factor.
> >
> > I have no knowledge of what Schleicher's discussions with Gates have been;
> > however, the ASH belt breaking problem is a recent one. Older belts don't
> > break - it's the NEW belts that are breaking. My belt is 12 years old, the
> > engine has 114 hours on it, and at least 600 starts. When I discussed belt
> > life with Martin Heide (the "H" in ASH) about 3 years ago (which was
> > before the current problem), he said several 26 Es had been in the shop
> > for the 250 hour motor inspection, and all belts were in good condition.
> >
> > It could be the twisting has become a problem due to the change in belt
> > construction that Schleicher says has caused the recent problems, but I
> > doubt it. When a belt breaks with only 5 or 10 hours on it, it doesn't
> > seem long enough for degradation to occur. I suspect the culprit is also
> > shock loading, but that's speculation on my part, since I haven't
> > discussed it with the factory or Gates.
> >
> > In any case, a prospective buyer might want to discuss the issue with
> > Schleicher, and remember that a glider ordered now won't be delivered for
> > many months, during which the problem is likely to be solved, if it isn't
> > already.
> >
> > --
> > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> > Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> >
> > "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
> > www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html
> >
> > "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org
>
> Is the ASH-26 a Walter Binder installation design?
> It seems so different than the other Retract-Engine Sailplanes.
>
> Hartley Falbaum
> DG800B "KF"

IIRC, Binder does the Solo-based DG and SH designs, and I think
some others (maybe Eta and the ASH-25 EB derivative he produces)...
I don't think he's involved with the Midwest installations in
Schleicher
products.

Antares was developed entirely independently of the other designs.

Best Regards, Dave

Glidingstuff

October 30th 06, 06:21 AM

Bumper wrote :

Simple, reliable, almost no maintenance required . . . even a cave man
could do it. A DEI? Kind of like the automatic parking option on the
new
Lexus - - why bother? (g)

I was going to put down a list of what the DEI manges but it is easier
to post this link :-) http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/dei-nt-e.html

Its not even worth comparing it to the Ilec. A one switch on and go.
Its software can also be upgraded when updates are available.

Paul

P.S Just arrived back with a brand new DG 808 cc for a customer.
Nice!!!!!

Andy[_1_]

October 30th 06, 02:35 PM

wrote:

> PS: It was pointed out that I forgot:
>
> NO GASOLINE AND NO GASOLINE FUMES !
>
> See ya, Dave

Can you comment on the expected battery life and the cost of
replacement? Can the owner replace the batteries?

thanks

Andy

Andor Holtsmark

October 30th 06, 06:01 PM

Hi Andy,
Information on the battery system can be found here:
http://lange-flugzeugbau.com/htm/english/products/antares_20e/batt
ery_system.html

At 14:42 30 October 2006, Andy wrote:
>
wrote:
>
>> PS: It was pointed out that I forgot:
>>
>> NO GASOLINE AND NO GASOLINE FUMES !
>>
>> See ya, Dave
>
>Can you comment on the expected battery life and the
>cost of
>replacement? Can the owner replace the batteries?
>
>thanks
>
>Andy
>
>

Andy[_1_]

October 30th 06, 09:49 PM

Andor Holtsmark wrote:
> Hi Andy,
> Information on the battery system can be found here:
> http://lange-flugzeugbau.com/htm/english/products/antares_20e/batt
> ery_system.html

Thanks. That tells me I should expect to replace the batteries at
least every 10 years but I found no informatoion on cost or whether it
was approved owner maintenance.

Andy

Stefan

October 30th 06, 10:01 PM

Andy schrieb:

> Thanks. That tells me I should expect to replace the batteries at
> least every 10 years but I found no informatoion on cost or whether it
> was approved owner maintenance.

No. It tells you that you should expect a lifetime of at least 10 years
or 1500 cycles.

Todays cost for a replacement is around 15k, nobody knows what it will
be in 10 years.

Stefan

Andor Holtsmark

October 30th 06, 10:48 PM

Hi Andy,
User maintenance:
No, Lange Flugzeugbau does not endorse users playing
around with the battery pack. What kind of maintenance
you would want to perform is also unclear to me. Howerver,
removing a battery pack and exchanging single batttery
modules is a simple task which takes little time when
performed by a trained individual.

Battery price:
The price of a full battery pack is an academic issue.
As pointed out; by the time you will need to replace
the pack, the price of the pack will be a very different
one. I am however, rather sure the price will not have
climbed. Furthermore, by then you should have climbed
3.600.000 m (11.811.024 ft) under power, and flown
some 228.000 km (123.110 n miles) in sawtooth flight,
assuming no nasty thermals have decided to interfere.

Andor

[email protected]

November 1st 06, 11:54 PM

One of my original questions was since both these designs are over 12
years old (normal life span for a design) what changes would you like
to see in future designs? And when do you expect a new self launch
motor glider design to come on the market?

On Oct 28, 11:11 am, "bumper" > wrote:
> "Gary Evans" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
> > A couple of DG800 advantages that bumper overlooked.
>
> > 1) An engine that doesn't cost $17000 to replace.
> > 2) An engine that can be worked on with out having
> > to remove it from the fuselage. While this may not
> > seem like something you will ever have to do you'll
> > want to keep a couple of big friends around for spark
> > plugs changes. I believe there were at least three
> > engines pulled for one problem or another at this years
> > ASA Parowan camp. They also had their own cart to haul
> > the engines around for repairs but I'm not sure if
> > thats a standard 26 option.
> > 3) A superior engine management system (DEI) with manual
> > back up.
>
> > IMO the engine related issues sum up the big difference
> > between these two ships as performance both in glide
> > and under power are way similar. The 26 has a smoother
> > engine and the 800 has one, which is easier and cheaper
> > to maintain. They are both state of the art ships and
> > you won't be sorry for buying either.
> > DG has done a pretty fair comparison between the 26/800/Ventus
> > 2cM that can be viewed here -
> >http://tinyurl.com/yz4shsGary,
>
> I agree that performance wise they're essentially equal. On your other
> points:
>
> 1) The 17K figure may seem a lot, however, the need to completely replace
> one of these engines is quite rare. Replacing the Wankel's major engine
> parts costs around $8K Euro. Those few cases were this was necessary were
> most likely due to oil starvation and a Chernobyl type melt down. You do
> need to keep oil in the tank and pay attention to engine temperatures.
>
> Otherwise the Wankel, besides having small size which allows a narrow
> fuselage, has excellent power density and vibration free smoothness. The
> Wankel is also remarkably reliable and trouble free. The lack of vibration
> means that stuff doesn't crack, break or fall off the motor and things
> nearby - - a major positive attribute as compared to most 2-strokes.
>
> I heard that two of the 26E engines pulled at Parowan where to replace
> broken drive belts. This is an unusual occurrence, as the Wankel, with it's
> multiple smaller power pulses per revolution, is gentle to the drive train
> as compared to a 2-stroke. There was talk of a change in formulation used in
> manufacturing the Gates Poly-Chain drive belts. AFAIK, the reason for this
> breakage hasn't been 100% resolved/confirmed. I do know that some owners
> have 150 hours and more with no drive belt issues. For the whole 26E fleet,
> I'm aware of only the Parowan failures and one prior failure caused by a
> bearing failure in one of the guide pulleys. Belt failures have occurred on
> the 2-stroke powered ships as well, a backfire on start up will do the deed.
>
> 2) Yup, on my 26E the engine must be pulled to change plugs. There is a
> factory mod that provides an access hole to allow plug service without
> pulling the engine. It's retrofitable to my ship, but since I've never had
> to service the plugs, I don't plan on adding this mod. Besides, the engine
> package is easy enough to remove and can be done solo in about an hour
> (maybe half that with good help). Remove 3 bolts, 3 wiring cable plugs, a
> couple of Bowden cable connections (throttle and prop stop) and a fuel line.
> A "cherry picker" engine hoist is needed if removing the engine solo. I've
> only done this once in the 4 years and 23 engine hours I've had the ship,
> but plan on doing it for the next annual just to look at things.
>
> 3) When shopping, I considered DG's DEI engine control a plus, but after
> using the simple ILEC engine control, as used on the 26E and many other
> self-launch gliders, I'm not so sure. To put away the prop on the 26E:
>
> a- turn off ignition
>
> b- when prop stops, engage manual prop-stop lever (this swings a rubber
> stopper into the prop arc) and nose over slightly to windmill prop into stop
> as viewed in rear view mirror.
>
> c- push pylon switch down until prop just disappears from view in mirror
> (this is the cool down position), at thermalling speeds, the additional drag
> caused by the partially extended prop/radiator is minimal and still allows
> reasonable climb performance.
>
> d- In my ship, the cool down period takes 3 - 4 minutes. After observing a 2
> C drop in engine coolant temp, push switch to retract prop fully.
>
> Simple, reliable, almost no maintenance required . . . even a cave man
> could do it. A DEI? Kind of like the automatic parking option on the new
> Lexus - - why bother? (g)
>
> I agree the most prominent mechanical difference between these two ships is
> the power train. I do not agree that the DG's 2-stroke engine is easier and
> cheaper to maintain. Given, replacing a 2-stroke engine is much less
> expensive than replacing the Wankel. However, this needs to be tempered by
> the fact that the Wankel will hardly need replacement if operated with
> reasonable care and its on-going maintenance is usually less expensive.
>
> After talking to Tom and Billy Stowers (High Country Soaring, and who have
> worked on all manner of these ships), my impression is that the 2-stroke
> maintenance issues they experience is an order of magnitude greater with
> 2-strokes than on the Wankel powered ships. This is also borne out by a
> check of the relevant AD's. The ASH26E has but two airworthiness directives
> (rotor cooling fan and muffler), both early-on teething problems that were
> resolved years ago.
>
> The many more subtle differences between the two ships are perhaps more
> subjective. I talked with Larry Mansberger about the "beneath the skin"
> differences between DG and Schleicher as I was not in a position to take a
> chain saw and see for myself. Keeping in mind that this was several years
> ago and the wing sections I saw were made prior to current DG factory
> ownership, the innards of the Schleicher wing looked to be assembled with
> the same care and attention to detail as the outer parts the customer
> normally sees - - not so inside the DG wing.
>
> Many of the DG's at Minden have gel-coat surface cracks on the wings,
> commonly around the spoiler boxes. I haven't seen this on Schleichers,
> though some earlier 26E's did show the wing spar profile after several
> years - - later versions, my 2002 model included, have not done this - so
> far. Subjectively, the 26E cockpit finish is nicer and ergonomics, even for
> taller pilots, is excellent. The DG's pigeon-toed rudder pedals, when I was
> trying it on, gave me foot cramps.
>
> I've asked several DG800 series owners, on the Minden ramp, why they chose
> the DG-800 series over the ASH26E. At the time, purchase cost was
> essentially the same for either ship and probably is still close. By a large
> margin the answer was availability, the delivery wait for the 26E then being
> two years, more than double that for the DG at the time. For one DG owner,
> the 800's two piece wing was a deciding factor (the 26E's one piece wing
> means the trailer must be longer, at about 35").
>
> All that said, owners of both these ships seem happy with their decisions,
> and that's what really counts. My strong bias in favor of the ASH26E may
> well be indicative of a underlying personality flaw (g), I have little
> tolerance for things mechanical that could have, or should have, been done
> better.
>
> bumper

[email protected]

November 2nd 06, 12:49 AM

Andor Holtsmark wrote:
> Hi Andy,
> User maintenance:
> No, Lange Flugzeugbau does not endorse users playing
> around with the battery pack. What kind of maintenance
> you would want to perform is also unclear to me. Howerver,
> removing a battery pack and exchanging single batttery
> modules is a simple task which takes little time when
> performed by a trained individual.
>
> Battery price:
> The price of a full battery pack is an academic issue.
> As pointed out; by the time you will need to replace
> the pack, the price of the pack will be a very different
> one. I am however, rather sure the price will not have
> climbed. Furthermore, by then you should have climbed
> 3.600.000 m (11.811.024 ft) under power, and flown
> some 228.000 km (123.110 n miles) in sawtooth flight,
> assuming no nasty thermals have decided to interfere.
>
> Andor

Hi,
Price of $15 000 for the batterie is not so expansive. 1500 tows @ $30
is $ 45 000.
Good deal I think!
S6

Eric Greenwell

November 2nd 06, 03:10 AM

wrote:
> One of my original questions was since both these designs are over 12
> years old (normal life span for a design) what changes would you like
> to see in future designs? And when do you expect a new self launch
> motor glider design to come on the market?

Since the manufacturers haven't seen fit to include me in their plans, I
can speak with the confidence brought by a near total lack of knowledge
of future products. We already have good choices for IC (internal
combustion) engine powered gliders, and fairly good choices for electric
motor powered gliders. The only change in the slow evolution of
motorgliders that I see is the use of a jet engine. So, call up each
dealer/factory in turn, and ask "when can I buy a jet powered
self-launcher"? They might tell you, or at least hint a bit.

If you want to extend your range of choices in IC powered gliders, call
up Windward Performance and ask them when their self-launching
SparrowHawk will be available. They delivered one to Mississippi
University for the UAV program, and now plan to build another, with a
purpose unknown to me.

Until we have a powerplant with a much better (power+duration)/weight
ratio, I just don't think we'll see much difference in what we have now.
It's what limits the wing loading range at both ends: the high end by
the need to carry so much weight in the fuselage; the low end by the
need to carry so much weight.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

Kemp

November 2nd 06, 03:45 AM

Ok, I'll bite. This is what I want:
- 15 meter, 45:1, 300 pound empty weight, 200 knot redline
- Turboprop self launch using something like this:
http://www.jetcatusa.com/spt5.html
This little thing could put out 55 lb of thrust and weigh (without
prop, frame, gearing etc.) 2.5 kg
- 6-8 gallon fuel capacity, good for 90 minutes
- Total delivered cost: US$70-80,000

This can be done today, and in fact, when the Sparrowhawk's racing
model comes out (no dates yet), it will fulfill the glider requirements
above. Of course I'm optimistic, but all the technology exists today
for all these requirements. I expect to buy this in the next 2-3
years.

Kemp

> If you want to extend your range of choices in IC powered gliders, call
> up Windward Performance and ask them when their self-launching
> SparrowHawk will be available. They delivered one to Mississippi
> University for the UAV program, and now plan to build another, with a
> purpose unknown to me.

Rory O'Conor

November 2nd 06, 10:10 AM

I would like to see more potential to store luggage to enable better
safari trips.
=20
I can already store:
Charts
Fuel pump
Small sleeping bag
Small tie-downs
Bottle engine oil
Toothbrush
=20
(assuming I leave the oxygen behind).
=20
But this is not really enough for a long trip.
=20
I think that the new SLMG should both be potentially competitive for
competition flying and also have sufficient storage to enable a 2-4 week
unsupported safari with a modicum of comfort.
=20
I would like to be able to also store:
a fuel container
a laptop computer
several chargers (batteries, mobile phone, computer etc)
some clothes
a pair of shoes
possibly a bigger sleeping bag
possibly even a karrimat and bivy bag
maybe a few tools=20
=20
I am sure that there is potentially usable space in the control area
next to the fuel tank, wheel box with access from behind the seat.
And maybe it is possible to make a seatback cushion that has space to
store a laptop.
And someone should sell a collapsible fuel container.
Possibly a sleeping bag storage area in the rear fuselage accessible via
the engine bay.
Maybe even potential for some in-wing storage areas.
=20
ps: I would also like more room in the instrument panel. I have no
transponder, nor FLARM nor IPAC, but with Horizon and T&S my panel is
full.
=20
Rory
DG800B
=20
Author: >
>>=20
Date/Time: 00:00 02 November 2006

________________________________

One of my original questions was since both these designs are over 12
years old (normal life span for a design) what changes would you like
to see in future designs? And when do you expect a new self launch
motor glider design to come on the market?

=20

bagmaker

November 2nd 06, 11:01 AM

Ok, I'll bite. This is what I want:
- 15 meter, 45:1, 300 pound empty weight, 200 knot redline
- Turboprop self launch using something like this:
http://www.jetcatusa.com/spt5.html
This little thing could put out 55 lb of thrust and weigh (without
prop, frame, gearing etc.) 2.5 kg
- 6-8 gallon fuel capacity, good for 90 minutes
- Total delivered cost: US$70-80,000

This can be done today, and in fact, when the Sparrowhawk's racing
model comes out (no dates yet), it will fulfill the glider requirements
above. Of course I'm optimistic, but all the technology exists today
for all these requirements. I expect to buy this in the next 2-3
years.

Kemp

If you want to extend your range of choices in IC powered gliders, call
up Windward Performance and ask them when their self-launching
SparrowHawk will be available. They delivered one to Mississippi
University for the UAV program, and now plan to build another, with a
purpose unknown to me.[/i][/color]

25 hour service interval? I was hooked untill then, anyone know why?

Bagmaker

Andy[_1_]

November 2nd 06, 02:43 PM

> Price of $15 000 for the batterie is not so expansive.

It's one of the costs of ownership that has to be compared with the
cost of maintaining/replacing an internal combustion engine. A
previous poster was concerned about the cost of replacing the ASH26E
engine and the Antares battery cost seems to be comparable.

Andy

bumper

November 2nd 06, 06:33 PM

"Andy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
>> Price of $15 000 for the batterie is not so expansive.
>
> It's one of the costs of ownership that has to be compared with the
> cost of maintaining/replacing an internal combustion engine. A
> previous poster was concerned about the cost of replacing the ASH26E
> engine and the Antares battery cost seems to be comparable.
>
> Andy
>

I don't think it's fair to compare those items directly. You *know* you will
have to replace the Antares batteries after X number of discharge/charge
cycles or years.

This is not the case with the ASH26E, as it is most unlikely the engine
would ever need to be replaced during the average lifetime of use - - there
has been but one engine failure requiring complete replacement in the US . .
.. and it seems there were extenuating circumstances even in that case.

Of course there are other costs, related to operating an internal combustion
engine, that may more appropriately be compared to the cost of those battery
packs. Stuff like fuel, oil, and the additional engine maintenance of an IC
engine as compared to an electric motor.

The IC engine maintenance seems to be the big variable, with things like the
odd water pump leak and spark plugs to replace. There's also the engine
start sealed lead acid battery to replace every 3 to 5 years (though in my
26E, that amounts to only $60 - - $30 each for two 18 amp hour bats - - one
is for avionics).

I see the main advantage of electric launch as convenience, simplicity, and
reliability (?). The "convenience" is limited, though, to flip-a-switch
operation and probably much less engine maintenance. On balance, the
electric will not be so convenient to use for safari type trips or even
extended day trips that require longer engine runs (i.e. using the glider as
Kempton has for flying from near the California coast, over the Sierra, and
on to the Great Basin in NV. This requires a substantial initial climb, then
glide over a wide sink-hole, and then another long climb to clear the
Sierra - - okay, now where do I plug this sucker in?!).

Each method of propulsion, like the glider designs themselves, has it's
merits and drawbacks, so it looks like variety should be around for awhile.

bumper