Flapped Glider Recommendations...

[noel.wade]

Hi All,

Assuming a budget of under $30k, I'm looking at upgrading my Russia
AC-4. She's an excellent ship and I could do a whole lot more with
her... But with our weak conditions locally, I find myself itching for
a few more points of glide (currently about 31:1) and a lower min-sink
(currently somewhere around 130-140 fpm). A promotion will be
forthcoming soon, and I've decided to take some of those dollars and
sink them into a better toy (to the detriment of my retirement fund,
I'm sure *chuckle*).

I fly in the Seattle area, where we regularly see cloud-bases of about
4k AGL, and only 2-4 knot lift. Winds tend to be only moderate, so
I'm more interested in a "floater" than a heavy/fast ship. I will be
doing little (if any) competitive flying; I just want to have fun, go
on decent X/C flights, and not get shot down on weak days when the
thermals are a few miles apart... Hypothetical situation: I fly 4
miles to check out potential lift and I have to bail back to my
starting point. Over that 8 miles I give up ~600 ft more altitude
than a decent 15m ship. If my starting altitude is only 3k - 4k, that
extra 600 ft means a lot!

BUT, I must say that the quick rigging of the Russia and its automatic
control hookups are really, really nice (as is its maneuverability and
other handling qualities). Many of the ships I'm looking at lack
those qualities, so I'm hesitant. If the Dollar wasn't so weak vs.
the Euro, I'd look seriously at buying an Apis kit...

Bottom line: I want a 15m ship, and want it to be easy to rig and fly
(so I fly it more often). It has to be a good weak-weather performer,
and cost less than $30k (preferably closer to $25k).

The top names that spring to mind are: Mini-Nimbus, Mosquito, LS-3.
(And yes I've read the Moffat article, Johnson Reports, and done a
crap-load of research online about these planes)

I've long liked the Mini's lower sink rate, lighter weight, and
automatic hookups. However, the seating ergonomics and visibility look
(from photos) like they're not as good as the other two. Its also not
as pretty of a ship, but that's a seriously minor concern (hell, I fly
a RUSSIA right now, remember!). The other selling point of the Mini
is that "b" and "c" models (with the improved tail) can be had for
around $20k - $24k.

The Mosquito is slightly heavier than the Mini (though it has the same
wing). This translates into a slightly higher min-sink rate. But it
appears to have better ergonomics, better visibility, and a reputation
for high-quality construction. Unfortunately this costs $$ - with
Mosquitos seemingly selling for near $30k.

The LS-3 is around $25k, has some of the best performance numbers, and
is reportedly very good in climb. However, it has NO automatic
hookups and the wings are a fair bit heavier to handle than the other
two gliders. It has the highest min-sink by a small margin.
Ergonomics are supposedly good (other than the flap & airbrake handles
having to be operated together); but I've never seen one in person.
The high weight and lack of automatic hookups bug me, but the price-
performance point is nice.

I've chatted with Mini and Mosquito pilots (its surprisingly hard to
find someone who's flown both), and am hoping to fly both a Mini and
an LS-3a at Minden this winter/spring (though if I buy one, I think
I'd prefer the flaperon LS-3). No clear decision as of yet...

Anyone care to toss in their opinions and thoughts?

Any alternate suggestions of aircraft I may have overlooked?

Thanks, take care,

--Noel

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

noel.wade wrote:
> The LS-3 is around $25k, has some of the best performance numbers, and
> is reportedly very good in climb. However, it has NO automatic
> hookups and the wings are a fair bit heavier to handle than the other
> two gliders. It has the highest min-sink by a small margin.
> Ergonomics are supposedly good (other than the flap & airbrake handles
> having to be operated together); but I've never seen one in person.
> The high weight and lack of automatic hookups bug me, but the price-
> performance point is nice.

One data point: LS-3 wings are heavy because the flaperon design
required a heavy lead mass balance. LS-3a segmented flap/ailerons do
not require the mass balance, so each wing is around 30 to 50 lbs lighter...

Marc

[Cats]

On Jan 7, 8:36*am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Assuming a budget of under $30k, I'm looking at upgrading my Russia
> AC-4. *She's an excellent ship and I could do a whole lot more with
> her... But with our weak conditions locally, I find myself itching for
> a few more points of glide (currently about 31:1) and a lower min-sink
> (currently somewhere around 130-140 fpm). *

<snip>

> Any alternate suggestions of aircraft I may have overlooked?

Libelle? Light & easy to rig, not self-conecting but not hard to do,
and in light weather it will be at the top of the heap at our club.
Cheap as well, at least in the UK! Certainly a better glide ratio
than your current ship, and in the UK a guy has done his Diamond 500k
flight in one in 2007.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 7, 3:36*am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Assuming a budget of under $30k, I'm looking at upgrading my Russia
> AC-4. *She's an excellent ship and I could do a whole lot more with
> her... But with our weak conditions locally, I find myself itching for
> a few more points of glide (currently about 31:1) and a lower min-sink
> (currently somewhere around 130-140 fpm). *A promotion will be
> forthcoming soon, and I've decided to take some of those dollars and
> sink them into a better toy (to the detriment of my retirement fund,
> I'm sure *chuckle*).
>
> I fly in the Seattle area, where we regularly see cloud-bases of about
> 4k AGL, and only 2-4 knot lift. *Winds tend to be only moderate, so
> I'm more interested in a "floater" than a heavy/fast ship. I will be
> doing little (if any) competitive flying; I just want to have fun, go
> on decent X/C flights, and not get shot down on weak days when the
> thermals are a few miles apart... *Hypothetical situation: *I fly 4
> miles to check out potential lift and I have to bail back to my
> starting point. *Over that 8 miles I give up ~600 ft more altitude
> than a decent 15m ship. *If my starting altitude is only 3k - 4k, that
> extra 600 ft means a lot!
>
> BUT, I must say that the quick rigging of the Russia and its automatic
> control hookups are really, really nice (as is its maneuverability and
> other handling qualities). *Many of the ships I'm looking at lack
> those qualities, so I'm hesitant. *If the Dollar wasn't so weak vs.
> the Euro, I'd look seriously at buying an Apis kit...
>
> Bottom line: *I want a 15m ship, and want it to be easy to rig and fly
> (so I fly it more often). *It has to be a good weak-weather performer,
> and cost less than $30k (preferably closer to $25k).
>
> The top names that spring to mind are: *Mini-Nimbus, Mosquito, LS-3.
> (And yes I've read the Moffat article, Johnson Reports, and done a
> crap-load of research online about these planes)
>
> I've long liked the Mini's lower sink rate, lighter weight, and
> automatic hookups. However, the seating ergonomics and visibility look
> (from photos) like they're not as good as the other two. *Its also not
> as pretty of a ship, but that's a seriously minor concern (hell, I fly
> a RUSSIA right now, remember!). *The other selling point of the Mini
> is that "b" and "c" models (with the improved tail) can be had for
> around $20k - $24k.
>
> The Mosquito is slightly heavier than the Mini (though it has the same
> wing). *This translates into a slightly higher min-sink rate. *But it
> appears to have better ergonomics, better visibility, and a reputation
> for high-quality construction. *Unfortunately this costs $$ - with
> Mosquitos seemingly selling for near $30k.
>
> The LS-3 is around $25k, has some of the best performance numbers, and
> is reportedly very good in climb. *However, it has NO automatic
> hookups and the wings are a fair bit heavier to handle than the other
> two gliders. *It has the highest min-sink by a small margin.
> Ergonomics are supposedly good (other than the flap & airbrake handles
> having to be operated together); but I've never seen one in person.
> The high weight and lack of automatic hookups bug me, but the price-
> performance point is nice.
>
> I've chatted with Mini and Mosquito pilots (its surprisingly hard to
> find someone who's flown both), and am hoping to fly both a Mini and
> an LS-3a at Minden this winter/spring (though if I buy one, I think
> I'd prefer the flaperon LS-3). *No clear decision as of yet...
>
> Anyone care to toss in their opinions and thoughts?
>
> Any alternate suggestions of aircraft I may have overlooked?
>
> Thanks, take care,
>
> --Noel

Don't discount older standard class ships like ASW-15 , 19, Std
Cirrus, LS1 series. They all have
a good deal more performance and are quite affordable. In the lift
strengths yoy descibe, flapped gliders
don't have a lot of advantage.
UH

[Greg Arnold]

noel.wade wrote:
> Hi All,
>

>
> The LS-3 is around $25k, has some of the best performance numbers, and
> is reportedly very good in climb. However, it has NO automatic
> hookups and the wings are a fair bit heavier to handle than the other
> two gliders. It has the highest min-sink by a small margin.
> Ergonomics are supposedly good (other than the flap & airbrake handles
> having to be operated together); but I've never seen one in person.
> The high weight and lack of automatic hookups bug me, but the price-
> performance point is nice.

The tail on the LS-3 has the same hookup as the LS-8 and other LS
models. You can't get the wings on unless the spoilers are hooked up,
and unless you hook up the flaps. The only thing that isn't "automatic"
is the ailerons on the "a" model.

Of course, by "automatic" I mean "you can't assemble the glider unless
everything is hooked up." You do have to manually line up a couple of
fittings to get the wings on. It is not a matter of shoving the wings
on and having everything hook up on its own as with newer gliders. But
you do have the safety benefits of "automatic" hookups (except the
ailerons on the "a" model).



>
> I've chatted with Mini and Mosquito pilots (its surprisingly hard to
> find someone who's flown both), and am hoping to fly both a Mini and
> an LS-3a at Minden this winter/spring (though if I buy one, I think
> I'd prefer the flaperon LS-3). No clear decision as of yet...
>
> Anyone care to toss in their opinions and thoughts?
>
> Any alternate suggestions of aircraft I may have overlooked?
>
> Thanks, take care,
>
> --Noel

[JS]

Good idea, Noel.
Don't be afraid of shifting your portfolio into the "German Plastic"
sector.
Its lots more fun than looking at spreadsheets.
Jim

On Jan 7, 12:36 am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've decided to take some of those dollars and
> sink them into a better toy (to the detriment of my retirement fund,
> I'm sure *chuckle*).
>
> --Noel

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Cats wrote:
>
> Libelle? Light & easy to rig, not self-conecting but not hard to do,
> and in light weather it will be at the top of the heap at our club.
>
I'd certainly agree with that. I can't wait for my third season in mine
to start.

I can confirm they are light and easy to rig. Its one glider that never
causes other pilots to dive for cover when you want help rigging or
derigging.

Libelles are partly self-connecting: the elevator and brakes
self-connect. The ailerons are not, but only take about 15 seconds each
to connect or disconnect. They are even simpler than Hoteliers and are
easy to check for correct connection. I can't comment about the ballast
system: mine is #82, so precedes the B-series addition of water ballast.

Mine has Streifneder trimmings (sealed surfaces, full span zigzag turbs
on the under surface) and seems to have gained about a point on L/D.

The only possible drawback is that the cockpit is fairly snug and may be
a problem for the larger pilot. The ventilation in hot conditions is
second to none.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

Noel,

noel.wade wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Assuming a budget of under $30k,
<snip>
> BUT, I must say that the quick rigging of the Russia and its automatic
> control hookups are really, really nice (as is its maneuverability and
> other handling qualities).
<snip>
Congratulations - you have one of the most gratifying illnesses known to
mankind: the illness (the decision process) is almost as fun as the cure
(flying your new toy).

> Bottom line: I want a 15m ship, and want it to be easy to rig and fly
> (so I fly it more often). It has to be a good weak-weather performer,
> and cost less than $30k (preferably closer to $25k).
>
> The top names that spring to mind are: Mini-Nimbus, Mosquito, LS-3.
> (And yes I've read the Moffat article, Johnson Reports, and done a
> crap-load of research online about these planes)
<snip>
> I've chatted with Mini and Mosquito pilots (its surprisingly hard to
> find someone who's flown both), and am hoping to fly both a Mini and
> an LS-3a at Minden this winter/spring (though if I buy one, I think
> I'd prefer the flaperon LS-3). No clear decision as of yet...
>
By my characterization you've listed 3 1st generation glass 15-meter
ships. Though Mini-Nimbii C models do have carbon (I believe), the
basic design is 1st-generation 15-meter. Each on your list pretty much
uses the same Wortmann FX 67K 150/170 airfoils.

Add to that list Slingsby Vegas and Zunis. Both have automatic control
hookups. The Zuni has but one loose (main) pin; I can't remember if
Vegas also have a loose tailplane pin (Zunis do not). While I've seen
neither listed recently in "Soaring", and I'd guess Vegas have higher
asking prices, neither being 'German glass' both probably inhabit price
points below German equivalents. Zunis are Experimental (no ATC).

I've rigged both, and both are as simple as any 15-meter glass ship
(with distinctly lighter-than-LS-3 wing panels. Strictly out of
curiosity, I once went from opening my Zuni trailer to being ready to
pre-flight in 8 timed minutes; <7 minutes reverse...no rushing/BS
allowed - just rigging - and several hours later - derigging.) Risking
offending retired Slingsby employees, I'd describe a Vega's main panels
as essentially Mosquito/Mini-Nimbus-like. Vegas and Zunis can be found
with various amounts of carbon (and Kevlar in Zunis) in them.

FWIW, my somewhat jaundiced view of why 4 of these 5 designs (LS-3
excluded) have discounted prices can in part - be attributed to their
'unconventional' pattern-drag devices. Since 2 such designs are on
*your* short list, I'm guessing you're comfortable with having to ascend
the associated learning curve (to which I add, "Good on you!").

Writing as one who transitioned from 2-33 to 1-26 to C-70 to HP-14 to
Zuni (the latter 3, no-spoiler/large-deflection-flap-only ships), place
me in the religious camp that doesn't believe only fools with a death
wish willingly fly flaps-only ships. The C-70/HP-14 purchase decisions
were cost-driven; the HP-14/Zuni purchase decisions were
flap-preference-driven. (IMHO, there's no such thing as too much
disposable drag come glider landing time! Mosquitoes, Mini-Nimbii and
Vegas have considerably more than Zuni's...and less than my former HP-14.)

Final observation - for the type of flying you described, there's not a
dime's worth of difference in performance between any of these 5 ships
that isn't *far* outweighed by the pilot's
skill/tenacity/mental-airmass-model. Handling differences will of
course be apparent & quantifiable by any competent test pilot, but
(IMHO) the 2 Big Ones (i.e. life-related) to anyone considering moving
to such ships are: 1) pitch sensitivity and 2) stall behavior. Having
flown only the Zuni of the 5 ships above, I'd characterize its pitch
feel as: sensitive & numb (side stick implementation; never flown w. a
center parallelogram stick - also to be found), a combo conducive to
alarming & potentially damaging PIO's if flown w/o a decent checkout.
Not a problem otherwise. Once aloft...IMHO, the FX 67K 150/170 airfoil
is pure pussycat.

Buy what you can find/afford/fit-in...then fly every chance you get.
Get good preflight input from someone(s) experienced in type
(important), apply your own considered judgment to said advice, fly
accordingly, and have at it. You won't be sorry!

Regards,
Bob W.

[noel.wade]

On Jan 7, 11:05*am, Bob Whelan > wrote:

> By my characterization you've listed 3 1st generation glass 15-meter
> ships. *Though Mini-Nimbii C models do have carbon (I believe), the
> basic design is 1st-generation 15-meter. *Each on your list pretty much
> uses the same Wortmann FX 67K 150/170 airfoils.

Right, although at different thicknesses, empty weights, control
layouts, cockpit designs, tail sizes, and such. ;-)

> Add to that list Slingsby Vegas and Zunis. *

I have never heard of the Vegas - will have to look it up.

Before I bought my Russia I went to So. Cal. and looked at the very
last Zuni II ever built. I didn't fly it; but messed around with it
on the ground for an hour or two. The push-pull stick (even though
this one was center-mounted) did NOT feel good to me - the thought of
having to move my whole arm (with the sensitivity of an all-flying
tail) just looked like it would make for VERY little feel/feedback.
Also, I am 6' 1" and 200 lbs - and my legs interfered a bit with the
flap operating crank. I concluded that the Zuni is a cool ship, but
not for me.

...and yes, if the LS-3 flaperons didn't require so much darned lead,
I would totally be happy with its rigging! *chuckle*

I would be curious to hear more information about how the LS fittings
are "semi-automatic". I've seen guys with PIKs and ASW's fishing
around behind their seat for control hookups and it just didnt look
like any fun! :-P

...My Russia has totally spoiled me, rigging-wise. With _no_ support
gear besides a stool, I can single-handedly pull my wings from the
trailer, carry one under my arms, and hook it up. Total time to rig
(without tape): 7 minutes by myself. 5 minutes with a helper!

There are a couple of Libelles at our field, and while I fit in them
(just barely, but comfortably) I would like to try for something a
little newer (though an H-301 is definitely on my list of
possibilities).

Since I also help friends rig an Apis or two, then watch G102s and
PIKs and an Open Cirrus struggle to get hooked up, I'm a bit gunshy
about heavy and non-automatic-hookup aircraft. Perhaps unnecessarily
so?

When it comes to performance - if you really think the performance is
that close, then I'd put more emphasis on handling. Which of these
aircraft do folks think is the most maneuverable / responsive?

Thanks for all of the advice, and I'm open to more!

Take care,

--Noel

[rlovinggood]

Noel,

All the suggestions about Mosquito, Libelle 301, Mini Nimbus, LS3,
Zuni, Vega, and the Standard Classers seem quite thorough, but I'll go
ahead and add my advice:

Get the one that has the best trailer.

You might be able to rig that Zuni in only 8 minutes, but the
trailer's got to be set up to allow it.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, NC, USA

[01-- Zero One]

"noel.wade" > wrote in message
:

<<SNIP>


> I would be curious to hear more information about how the LS fittings
> are "semi-automatic". I've seen guys with PIKs and ASW's fishing
> around behind their seat for control hookups and it just didnt look
> like any fun! :-P
>





Noel,



The flapperons (LS3) or the flaps (LS3-a) connect by aligning a pin on
the side of the fuselage into a receptacle in the edge of the
flap(peron).



On the LS3-a you also need to connect the ailerons (L'Hottellier
fittings) under the turtledeck and pin them or engage the safety
sleeves. This is probably what you remember seeing people work on.



However, with just a small amount of practice, one can do them by feel
only, safety them, and test them in a _very_ short time.



If it takes me longer than 25-30 seconds (TOTAL! Including safetying and
testing) then I am not paying attention. The first time I did it, it
seemed like it took me 15 minutes to do it. The second time it took
only a couple of minutes. After a few more times, well under a minute.



So, at least on an LS3-a, it just is not an issue.





Larry Goddard

Former LS3-a driver

[noel.wade]

Thanks for the LS info, Larry!

Ray -

Great, but how do I find out how "nice" the trailer is without flying
around the country and looking at each one of them? :-P Everyone says
they have a "good" trailer - but the definition of "good" seems to
vary a lot based on who's selling and who's buying! heheheh...

I totally agree, though. Our club used to have a Russia and it got a
bad reputation for never being flown. The club got rid of it before I
joined. People said it was good to get rid of it, but with a little
bit of probing I found out that people LOVED it in the air - they just
HATED dragging it awkwardly out of the trailer. This is another place
where my Russia has spoiled me - its a custom-built trailer where the
wings are on sliding tracks, and the front and rear doors capture the
wing roots & tips to keep the whole thing secured for trailering.

LS drivers: What do you think about the fact that the airbrake and
flap handles share space? Johnson's review dinged both the 3 and the
3a for this. How much does it annoy you? Are you ever concerned that
you'll have to put the flaps down at high speed (contrary to the POH)
in order to get the spoilers out?

Thanks a bunch, take care,

--Noel

[Cats]

On Jan 7, 8:03*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
<snip>
> Since I also help friends rig an Apis or two, then watch G102s and
> PIKs and an Open Cirrus struggle to get hooked up, I'm a bit gunshy
> about heavy and non-automatic-hookup aircraft. *Perhaps unnecessarily
> so?
<SNIP>

It's taken a few goes to get the hang of making the connections in my
glider, but it really doesn't take long though I do get someone else
to check it after I've taken it to the launch point. It has hoteliers
with sleeves so the trick is to be able to do three things at once
with one's hand. I guess it helps I've got a smaller hand than the
average guy, plus the hatch has a camming device to hold it on so no
need to tape it for that purpose.

However, the elevator is self-connecting. I was told that there have
been a lot of accidents with mis-connected elevators, including one
where the owner rigged correctly and went away. Someone else took the
elevator off for some reason and put it back unconnected. The owner
winch launched, realised there was a problem and at the top of the
launch bailed out, thankfully successfully. I've also been told that
the person that fiddled with it has since gone on to become an aircaft
accident inspector!

[[email protected]]

On Jan 7, 1:51*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Thanks for the LS info, Larry!
>
> Ray -
>
> Great, but how do I find out how "nice" the trailer is without flying
> around the country and looking at each one of them? :-P *Everyone says
> they have a "good" trailer - but the definition of "good" seems to
> vary a lot based on who's selling and who's buying! heheheh...
>
> I totally agree, though. *Our club used to have a Russia and it got a
> bad reputation for never being flown. *The club got rid of it before I
> joined. *People said it was good to get rid of it, but with a little
> bit of probing I found out that people LOVED it in the air - they just
> HATED dragging it awkwardly out of the trailer. *This is another place
> where my Russia has spoiled me - its a custom-built trailer where the
> wings are on sliding tracks, and the front and rear doors capture the
> wing roots & tips to keep the whole thing secured for trailering.
>
> LS drivers: *What do you think about the fact that the airbrake and
> flap handles share space? *Johnson's review dinged both the 3 and the
> 3a for this. *How much does it annoy you? *Are you ever concerned that
> you'll have to put the flaps down at high speed (contrary to the POH)
> in order to get the spoilers out?
>
> Thanks a bunch, take care,
>
> --Noel

Noel,
I've been flying a LS 3a for a year and so far the flap/spoiler
operation has not been an issue. I have yet to be in a position to
where I felt the need to depoly the spoilers at high speeds.

I can self rig the ship in about 30 to 40 minutes. I use pins to
safety the airleron connections and that does take the most time. My
hands get a little sweatty here in the Arizona sun.

MIke

[Solo]

Do not forget the PIK-20 that comes in different versions. It has a similar airfoils as the previously mentionned gliders and performs almost as well as a LS-4. They are available at or below $20K and are, to me, the best value for the money. They also do not have a gel coat finish with the accompanying problems of old age.

Mine is a 20B with the carbon spar option, which saves about 30 Lbs per wing. There is no self rigging but is easy and fast to set up.

I fly in Eastern Canada with conditions similar to what you describe, most of the time, and I have a ton of fun. It climbs as well as anything we have in the club with the main difference being the pilot. I still have many years of fun learning ahead of me.

Richard F.

;590475']Noel,

noel.wade wrote:
Hi All,

Assuming a budget of under $30k,
snip
BUT, I must say that the quick rigging of the Russia and its automatic
control hookups are really, really nice (as is its maneuverability and
other handling qualities).
snip
Congratulations - you have one of the most gratifying illnesses known to
mankind: the illness (the decision process) is almost as fun as the cure
(flying your new toy).

Bottom line: I want a 15m ship, and want it to be easy to rig and fly
(so I fly it more often). It has to be a good weak-weather performer,
and cost less than $30k (preferably closer to $25k).

The top names that spring to mind a Mini-Nimbus, Mosquito, LS-3.
(And yes I've read the Moffat article, Johnson Reports, and done a
crap-load of research online about these planes)
snip
I've chatted with Mini and Mosquito pilots (its surprisingly hard to
find someone who's flown both), and am hoping to fly both a Mini and
an LS-3a at Minden this winter/spring (though if I buy one, I think
I'd prefer the flaperon LS-3). No clear decision as of yet...

By my characterization you've listed 3 1st generation glass 15-meter
ships. Though Mini-Nimbii C models do have carbon (I believe), the
basic design is 1st-generation 15-meter. Each on your list pretty much
uses the same Wortmann FX 67K 150/170 airfoils.

Add to that list Slingsby Vegas and Zunis. Both have automatic control
hookups. The Zuni has but one loose (main) pin; I can't remember if
Vegas also have a loose tailplane pin (Zunis do not). While I've seen
neither listed recently in "Soaring", and I'd guess Vegas have higher
asking prices, neither being 'German glass' both probably inhabit price
points below German equivalents. Zunis are Experimental (no ATC).

I've rigged both, and both are as simple as any 15-meter glass ship
(with distinctly lighter-than-LS-3 wing panels. Strictly out of
curiosity, I once went from opening my Zuni trailer to being ready to
pre-flight in 8 timed minutes; 7 minutes reverse...no rushing/BS
allowed - just rigging - and several hours later - derigging.) Risking
offending retired Slingsby employees, I'd describe a Vega's main panels
as essentially Mosquito/Mini-Nimbus-like. Vegas and Zunis can be found
with various amounts of carbon (and Kevlar in Zunis) in them.

FWIW, my somewhat jaundiced view of why 4 of these 5 designs (LS-3
excluded) have discounted prices can in part - be attributed to their
'unconventional' pattern-drag devices. Since 2 such designs are on
*your* short list, I'm guessing you're comfortable with having to ascend
the associated learning curve (to which I add, "Good on you!").

Writing as one who transitioned from 2-33 to 1-26 to C-70 to HP-14 to
Zuni (the latter 3, no-spoiler/large-deflection-flap-only ships), place
me in the religious camp that doesn't believe only fools with a death
wish willingly fly flaps-only ships. The C-70/HP-14 purchase decisions
were cost-driven; the HP-14/Zuni purchase decisions were
flap-preference-driven. (IMHO, there's no such thing as too much
disposable drag come glider landing time! Mosquitoes, Mini-Nimbii and
Vegas have considerably more than Zuni's...and less than my former HP-14.)

Final observation - for the type of flying you described, there's not a
dime's worth of difference in performance between any of these 5 ships
that isn't *far* outweighed by the pilot's
skill/tenacity/mental-airmass-model. Handling differences will of
course be apparent & quantifiable by any competent test pilot, but
(IMHO) the 2 Big Ones (i.e. life-related) to anyone considering moving
to such ships a 1) pitch sensitivity and 2) stall behavior. Having
flown only the Zuni of the 5 ships above, I'd characterize its pitch
feel as: sensitive & numb (side stick implementation; never flown w. a
center parallelogram stick - also to be found), a combo conducive to
alarming & potentially damaging PIO's if flown w/o a decent checkout.
Not a problem otherwise. Once aloft...IMHO, the FX 67K 150/170 airfoil
is pure pussycat.

Buy what you can find/afford/fit-in...then fly every chance you get.
Get good preflight input from someone(s) experienced in type
(important), apply your own considered judgment to said advice, fly
accordingly, and have at it. You won't be sorry!

Regards,
Bob W.

[noel.wade]

> I can self rig the ship in about 30 to 40 minutes. *I use pins to
> safety the airleron connections and that does take the most time. *My
> hands get a little sweatty here in the Arizona sun.

Thanks for the info!

How are the spoiler hookups - similar to the ailerons?

--Noel

[01-- Zero One]

"noel.wade" > wrote in message
:

> > I can self rig the ship in about 30 to 40 minutes. I use pins to
> > safety the airleron connections and that does take the most time. My
> > hands get a little sweatty here in the Arizona sun.
>
> Thanks for the info!
>
> How are the spoiler hookups - similar to the ailerons?
>
> --Noel





Sorry for omitting that earlier, Noel,



The spoilers are automatic as well. There is a rotating shaft with 2
pins in the side of the fuselage that inserts into a receptacle on each
wing. Wing will not go on unless this is properly positioned.





Larry

[Clint]

My LAK 12 has a combination of automatic and manual control hook-ups.
The maual ones fit easily and are a pleasure to use - tha automatic
ones rely on the wings (flaps) and elevators being lined up perfectly
before the final push. If everything in not perfectly lined - the
links tend to damage the sockets into which they fit and the whole
wing does not go on - not an ideal situation. Modern automatic hookups
look fantastic but poorly designed ones are no easier than manual hook-
ups.

Clinton
LAK 12

[[email protected]]

Noel:

For starters, you can tell a good trailer if it says Cobra, Komet,
Eberle or Pfeiffer on it.

There are some dogs within these makes but it is a good starting
point. As has been pointed out, if the trailer sucks (you are
exhausted +/- bleeding +/- damage to glider after rig or derig), it
really takes the joy out of flying and you begin to weight the hassle:
fun ratio every time you think about flying.

[Clint]

> The top names that spring to mind are: *Mini-Nimbus, Mosquito, LS-3.
> (And yes I've read the Moffat article, Johnson Reports, and done a
> crap-load of research online about these planes)
>

I notice you havn't got the ASW 20 on your list? The combination of
performance, quality and general ease of use would put this aircraft
near the top of my list within the budget you are considering. Just
wish my LAK was as easy to rig and de-rig as an ASW 20 - even without
automatic control linkages.

Clinton
LAK 12

[noel.wade]

On Jan 8, 3:02 am, Clint > wrote:
> I notice you havn't got the ASW 20 on your list? The combination of

ASW-20's still seem to go for a decent chunk of change. Yes it had the
best performance for its day; but people seem to think that its still
worth a fair amount of money ($30k - $40k) despite its age, manual
hookups, etc.

If it were within my budget (i.e. say $28k) then I'd strongly consider
an ASW-20; but I haven't seen any going for that low of an amount.

--Noel

[[email protected]]

Not a bird of the same flock, but how about a Pilatus B4 ? Goes for
around 16K +/- Metal ship, lots of fun, and you can leave it tied
out.
Doug

[noel.wade]

On Jan 8, 8:50 am, " >
wrote:
> Not a bird of the same flock, but how about a Pilatus B4 ? Goes for
> around 16K +/- Metal ship, lots of fun, and you can leave it tied
> out.
> Doug

Doug -

Thanks, but my Russia is no trouble at all to rig; so a metal glider I
can tie out isn't a compelling argument to me. Also, it has a similar
sink-rate and almost the same glide. If I'm going to pay the taxes
and fees to switch gliders, I really want around 38:1 or better, as I
feel that performance jump would justify the expenditure. An increase
of only 2 or 3 points in glide over my AC-4 is not enough.

Someone suggested a used 13m Apis (36:1), and that is tempting. We
already have 2 locally and they do quite well. Its right on the
bubble in terms of the amount of performance I want; but sadly I think
the limited availability plus the high cost of a new one (again with
the damn weak dollar) will push the sales price of a used Apis 13m out
of my budget anyways.

Take care,

--Noel

[Jack[_4_]]

I owned a reasonably nice PIK-20B for a few years. It was the carbon
winged version and was easy to rig. The trailer wasn't all that great,
but could easily have been improved. I did a few things to it to make
it easier. I seldom spent more than 20 minutes rigging it including
taping and a positive control check. I agree with the previous poster
that they are about the best bang for the buck, if you can find a nice
one. Probably the very best thing about a PIK is the polyurethane
finish. Mine was still in excellent shape after 32 years. No gel coat
to crack and craze.

Jack

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

noel.wade wrote:
> On Jan 8, 8:50 am, " >
> wrote:
>> Not a bird of the same flock, but how about a Pilatus B4 ? Goes for
>> around 16K +/- Metal ship, lots of fun, and you can leave it tied
>> out.
>> Doug
>
> Doug -
>
> Thanks, but my Russia is no trouble at all to rig; so a metal glider I
> can tie out isn't a compelling argument to me.
>
Others may not agree, but IME the Pilatus isn't all that easy to rig.
I've assisted to rig the local one a few times. Its not difficult but it
is finicky. The fit between the wing pickup points and the drag links is
only a few thou, so it takes jiggling to get the wings in place and
while this is going on the people on the tips MUST NOT lower them or the
non-removable lower surface root fairings get bent and the pilot will
not be a happy bunny. Like an ASH-25 or a G103, its a glider I'm happy
to avoid rigging.

Add that to your list: as well as a good trailer (tows well, is dry, is
easy to rig and de-rig from) the glider should not be one that people
avoid having to rig.

In a similar vein, I reckon that ASW-19, 20, Pegase and LS gliders rig
easily while a Discus is harder. IOW, generally I prefer dual wing pin
systems because the first wing can't get punted out by the second.
Notable exceptions are Libelles and Kestrels: these are all single pin
systems but the spar stubs are fully exposed so you can see exactly
what's going on rather than groveling inside the fuselage/peering
through holes while trying to get the alignment right. The unusual
Mosquito / mini-Nimbus system with its single load bearing pin at one
side of the fuselage is pretty easy to rig too.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Peter Thomas]

if you can find one a Hornet, basicaly a mosquito fuselage
and libelle wings, full auto connect controls, solid
38/1, slightly dissapointing 2 part canopy, but if
you were realy lucky a C with carbon spars and lighter
wings and the Mosquito canopy. mine goes fine in your
English conditions

LS1f also 38/1

Speed Astir, decent gel, scratch well, not auto connect


DG100/101, very good in weak conditions, good gel

all 38.1

of the older flapped gliders the LS3/a is probably
the best in weak conditions

later Pegasus (90) have auto connects

possibly A ventus B or C 15m with the right winglets

Pete

At 22:07 08 January 2008, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>noel.wade wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 8:50 am, '
>> wrote:
>>> Not a bird of the same flock, but how about a Pilatus
>>>B4 ? Goes for
>>> around 16K +/- Metal ship, lots of fun, and you can
>>>leave it tied
>>> out.
>>> Doug
>>
>> Doug -
>>
>> Thanks, but my Russia is no trouble at all to rig;
>>so a metal glider I
>> can tie out isn't a compelling argument to me.
> >
>Others may not agree, but IME the Pilatus isn't all
>that easy to rig.
>I've assisted to rig the local one a few times. Its
>not difficult but it
>is finicky. The fit between the wing pickup points
>and the drag links is
> only a few thou, so it takes jiggling to get the
>wings in place and
>while this is going on the people on the tips MUST
>NOT lower them or the
>non-removable lower surface root fairings get bent
>and the pilot will
>not be a happy bunny. Like an ASH-25 or a G103, its
>a glider I'm happy
>to avoid rigging.
>
>Add that to your list: as well as a good trailer (tows
>well, is dry, is
>easy to rig and de-rig from) the glider should not
>be one that people
>avoid having to rig.
>
>In a similar vein, I reckon that ASW-19, 20, Pegase
>and LS gliders rig
>easily while a Discus is harder. IOW, generally I prefer
>dual wing pin
>systems because the first wing can't get punted out
>by the second.
>Notable exceptions are Libelles and Kestrels: these
>are all single pin
>systems but the spar stubs are fully exposed so you
>can see exactly
>what's going on rather than groveling inside the fuselage/peering
>>
>through holes while trying to get the alignment right.
>The unusual
>Mosquito / mini-Nimbus system with its single load
>bearing pin at one
>side of the fuselage is pretty easy to rig too.
>
>
>--
>martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>gregorie. | Essex, UK
>org |
>

[noel.wade]

OK, how's this for a switcheroo (hijacking my own thread!) - A couple
of people here stated that they thought I wouldn't see much of a
performance difference by going to a flapped ship in weak conditions.
A couple of local pilots with decades of experience have now also said
that. There's still a mental appeal to me in having a "complex"
glider - but if it'll get me a newer or nicer aircraft, I'm open to
the idea of a Standard-Class ship instead.

I've had a private email from someone suggesting an SZD-55 as a good
option (though I don't know if they'd be within my $30k budget limit).

Any other thoughts on what I could get in the Standard class for
around $25k - $30k? Priorities are still 38:1 minimum L/D, good weak-
weather performance (low sink-rate and/or great climb rate),
maneuverable/responsive in the air, and relatively easy to rig.

Honestly I haven't looked all that much... I'm not interested in old
beasts like the LS-1s or G102s or Standard Cirruses. A Libelle H-201,
eh (would probably go with a 301 at that point). How's the Pegasus in
light conditions? Any other weak-weather performers that folks would
recommend in the Standard Class?

Thanks a bunch for all the thoughts and advice!

--Noel

[Ramy]

On Jan 8, 6:15*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> OK, how's this for a switcheroo (hijacking my own thread!) - A couple
> of people here stated that they thought I wouldn't see much of a
> performance difference by going to a flapped ship in weak conditions.
> A couple of local pilots with decades of experience have now also said
> that. *There's still a mental appeal to me in having a "complex"
> glider - but if it'll get me a newer or nicer aircraft, I'm open to
> the idea of a Standard-Class ship instead.
>
> I've had a private email from someone suggesting an SZD-55 as a good
> option (though I don't know if they'd be within my $30k budget limit).
>
> Any other thoughts on what I could get in the Standard class for
> around $25k - $30k? *Priorities are still 38:1 minimum L/D, good weak-
> weather performance (low sink-rate and/or great climb rate),
> maneuverable/responsive in the air, and relatively easy to rig.
>
> Honestly I haven't looked all that much... *I'm not interested in old
> beasts like the LS-1s or G102s or Standard Cirruses. *A Libelle H-201,
> eh (would probably go with a 301 at that point). *How's the Pegasus in
> light conditions? *Any other weak-weather performers that folks would
> recommend in the Standard Class?
>
> Thanks a bunch for all the thoughts and advice!
>
> --Noel

That's an easy one. LS4 or DG300 will be your best bet for 30K.

Ramy

[noel.wade]

> That's an easy one. LS4 or DG300 will be your best bet for 30K.
>
> Ramy

Never seen an LS-4 for sale; and I *love* our two local DG-300's - but
the ones I've seen online seem to go for closer to $40k or $50k!
Thought they were out of my budget (unless people are asking for WAY
more than they're actually selling the aircraft for)...

--Noel

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

noel.wade wrote:
>> That's an easy one. LS4 or DG300 will be your best bet for 30K.
>>
>> Ramy
>
> Never seen an LS-4 for sale; and I *love* our two local DG-300's - but
> the ones I've seen online seem to go for closer to $40k or $50k!
> Thought they were out of my budget (unless people are asking for WAY
> more than they're actually selling the aircraft for)...

The expensive ones you've seen are likely newer DG-303s. DG-300s sell
in the low to mid-30s these days. The DG-101 (aka DG-100G) is another
good choice, nice ones with Komet trailers sell in the mid-20s. They do
have manual hookups for spoilers and ailerons, but they're relatively
easy to see and manipulate.

Marc

[Adam]

On Jan 8, 8:15 pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> OK, how's this for a switcheroo (hijacking my own thread!) - A couple
> of people here stated that they thought I wouldn't see much of a
> performance difference by going to a flapped ship in weak conditions.
> A couple of local pilots with decades of experience have now also said
> that. There's still a mental appeal to me in having a "complex"
> glider - but if it'll get me a newer or nicer aircraft, I'm open to
> the idea of a Standard-Class ship instead.
>
> I've had a private email from someone suggesting an SZD-55 as a good
> option (though I don't know if they'd be within my $30k budget limit).
>
> Any other thoughts on what I could get in the Standard class for
> around $25k - $30k? Priorities are still 38:1 minimum L/D, good weak-
> weather performance (low sink-rate and/or great climb rate),
> maneuverable/responsive in the air, and relatively easy to rig.
>
> Honestly I haven't looked all that much... I'm not interested in old
> beasts like the LS-1s or G102s or Standard Cirruses. A Libelle H-201,
> eh (would probably go with a 301 at that point). How's the Pegasus in
> light conditions? Any other weak-weather performers that folks would
> recommend in the Standard Class?
>
> Thanks a bunch for all the thoughts and advice!
>
> --Noel

Hi Noel,

I live in Minnesota, not really known for its strong conditions. I
considered many of the sailplanes you did for my first ship and flew
to both coasts to look at a few of them. For example, I looked at a
Mosquito and an LS-1f. I ended up buying a Jantar Standard 2 simply
because it was by far in the best shape of the lot.

At 6 foot and 200 pounds you will fit fine in it. It is easy to rig
and the connections are easy to manipulate and verify. Airbrakes and
water hook up automatically. There is a single pin to align with a
rigging tool to pull the wings in. Wings are on the heavier side, but
fit ladies can manage the wingtips no problem. I typically rig faster
than others.

Like you, I worried a lot about weak-weather performance, especially
after I read the numbers in the sailplane directory. It turned out to
be a complete non-issue. Perhaps because the numbers are wrong! They
list a sink rate of 0.77 m/s or 151 ft/min at 52 kts. However this
sink rate is for the fully-ballasted condition with 150 liters of
water (10 pounds/ft**2 loading) The actual dry figures from the POH
are 0.60 m/s or 118 ft/min at 41 kts and 6.2 pounds/ft**2 loading.

Real world experience? I did my 50k (100k+ actually) on a day when a
well-piloted Ka-6E and another higher performing flapped ship landed
out. So it can't be that bad 'cause I am not that good!

Regarding glide, during my five hour, I flew for a long time with a
Mosquito. At best glide it was pretty even with the edge going to the
Mosquito.

It is tough as nails and parts are available too. Most are poly-
urethaned.

Anyway, hope this helps in your search. I'd go for the nicest
condition ship I could find.

/Adam

[noel.wade]

Thanks Adam, but I'm not interested in a medium-performance metal
ship. The Jantar Standard 2 is a fine first ship; but its not enough
of a performance jump from my Russia to be an appealing choice.

I believe that my budget affords ships that are newer and have better
performance - whether they're standard-class or flapped. And I am
more interested in those options.

Appreciate it, though!

--Noel

[Bert Willing[_2_]]

Jantars aren't made out of metal.

"noel.wade" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks Adam, but I'm not interested in a medium-performance metal
> ship. The Jantar Standard 2 is a fine first ship; but its not enough
> of a performance jump from my Russia to be an appealing choice.
>
> I believe that my budget affords ships that are newer and have better
> performance - whether they're standard-class or flapped. And I am
> more interested in those options.
>
> Appreciate it, though!
>
> --Noel

[rlovinggood]

"Old Beasts?"

My LS1-d farts in your general direction!

Don't think an LS1 can keep up? Check out Sam Giltner's successes in
the past couple of years in Sports Class races. He flies an LS1-f.
Immaculately prepared, true. Superb pilot, very true. LS1 old?
Yes. Beastly? No.

By the way, the 301 Libelles are older than the LS1's.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
LS1-d

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 6:43*am, rlovinggood > wrote:
> "Old Beasts?"
>
> My LS1-d farts in your general direction!
>
> Don't think an LS1 can keep up? *Check out Sam Giltner's successes in
> the past couple of years in Sports Class races. *He flies an LS1-f.
> Immaculately prepared, true. *Superb pilot, very true. *LS1 old?
> Yes. *Beastly? *No.
>
> By the way, the 301 Libelles are older than the LS1's.
>
> Ray Lovinggood
> Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
> LS1-d

LOL Ray! Too funny!


Noel,

I have an LS1f. Don't discount this particular ship. It's a joy to
fly, very easy to rig, and certainly fits your criteria. It's very
similar to the LS4 in both looks and handling, but with a little less
L/D at 38:1. Besides the one on wings and wheels, I know of two others
that are available. Let me know if you want details.

Dave

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

noel.wade wrote:
>
> Any other thoughts on what I could get in the Standard class for
> around $25k - $30k? Priorities are still 38:1 minimum L/D, good weak-
> weather performance (low sink-rate and/or great climb rate),
> maneuverable/responsive in the air, and relatively easy to rig.
>
> Honestly I haven't looked all that much... I'm not interested in old
> beasts like the LS-1s or G102s or Standard Cirruses. A Libelle H-201,
> eh (would probably go with a 301 at that point). How's the Pegasus in
> light conditions? Any other weak-weather performers that folks would
> recommend in the Standard Class?
>
I don't know how the price compares, but I spent two happy years flying
my club's Pegase 90 in a lot of different conditions. The main
difference between a 101D and a 90 is that the 90 is a later model and
has fully automatic control hook-ups. I like the Pegase a lot and would
probably have bought one apart from there being none available when I
was in the market. At the time my wish list included Pegase, ASW-19,
ASW-20 and Libelle 201. Performance wise, the Pegase sits between the 19
and the 20. Its essentially a slightly modified ASW-20 fuselage with
completely new wings. If you look under the wing at the right angle you
can just see where the 20's cockpit air inlets have been blocked off:
the Pegase uses a simpler nose inlet.

Has the 3000 hour issue in the US been cleared yet?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Adam]

On Jan 9, 2:42*am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Thanks Adam, but I'm not interested in a medium-performance metal
> ship. *The Jantar Standard 2 is a fine first ship; but its not enough
> of a performance jump from my Russia to be an appealing choice.
>
> I believe that my budget affords ships that are newer and have better
> performance - whether they're standard-class or flapped. *And I am
> more interested in those options.
>
> Appreciate it, though!
>
> --Noel

Hi Noel,

"Medium-performance metal"? Ouch!

OK, so you know little about the Jantars. They were built from 1973
until the mid-90s. My "Standard 2" was made in 1981.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_Bielsko_Jantar_Standard

I only mention it as a viable option to the planes you listed (first
and second generation 'glass). Of the planes I went to see, I would
have bought the either Mini-Nimbus or the LS-1f from a price/
performance point of view. Condition left a lot to be desired
howver...

Taking your priority list:
"Priorities are still 38:1 minimum L/D, good weak-
weather performance (low sink-rate and/or great climb rate),
maneuverable/responsive in the air, and relatively easy to rig."

How does a Jantar rate (IMO)?
It does 38:1, it rigs easily, it is responsive, it is fair in the
climb department.

In addition, it has a few desirable features like a very strong
construction (154kt VNE) and a tall landing gear. No wood/balsa cores
to rot, honest behavior in the air, very powerful top/bottom spoliers,
and a good safety record.

On the negative, I find the ailerons heavier than other single-seaters
(could be my seals) and not everyone like the seating arrangement. I
find it comfortable as a six footer.

The "2" version comes in far less than your budget. However the
Standard 3 version puts you into $25k and give you a proper canopy.

OK, I'll stop with the sales pitch. I totally understand if you want
to make a bigger jump. Don't we all?
/Adam

[noel.wade]

Wow, who knew how much controversy I could start with just a couple of
words?? ;-)

On the Jantars: I admit I mis-spoke about them being metal - don't
know why I was thinking that was the case. A local CFIG tried to sell
me his Jantar Standard 2 when I went looking for my first ship. I
checked it out; but decided the aircraft wasn't for me. I haven't
looked at the Standard 3... BTW, according to Johnson the JS2 L/D
was 36:1, not 38:1. So no, it doesn't meet my "38:1" criteria.

As far as LS-1s go: A buddy of mine flies an LS-1 and does REALLY
well with it. However, it seems that all of the LS-1s I've seen have
reached the point where their gelcoat is going bad / wearing out...
This buddy of mine is actually refinishing the LS-1 this winter; its
going to look great when he's done, but it sounds like an insane
amount of work!

The LS-1 is another one of those situations where I say "I can afford
a newer/better ship with my budget - so why buy something older?" For
example: There's a pretty nice LS-3 on Wings&Wheels for $24k. OTHER
than price, why would I go with an LS-1 instead of an LS-3? Think the
"heavy" LS-3 wings are that big of a deal?

There have been steady advances in airfoils, ergonomics, safety, and
materials-usage over the years. I am hoping to leverage some of that
with my budget - not get the cheapest glider I can that meets a bare
minimum of my criteria.

Anyone have further thoughts (or a critique of my position)?

Thanks, take care,

--Noel
P.S. Martin - AFAIK, the 3000-hour issue on the Pegasus is still a
problem in the USA. :-(

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 9:58*am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Wow, who knew how much controversy I could start with just a couple of
> words?? ;-)
>
> On the Jantars: *I admit I mis-spoke about them being metal - don't
> know why I was thinking that was the case. *A local CFIG tried to sell
> me his Jantar Standard 2 when I went looking for my first ship. *I
> checked it out; but decided the aircraft wasn't for me. *I haven't
> looked at the Standard 3... *BTW, according to Johnson the JS2 L/D
> was *36:1, not 38:1. *So no, it doesn't meet my "38:1" criteria.
>
> As far as LS-1s go: *A buddy of mine flies an LS-1 and does REALLY
> well with it. *However, it seems that all of the LS-1s I've seen have
> reached the point where their gelcoat is going bad / wearing out...
> This buddy of mine is actually refinishing the LS-1 this winter; its
> going to look great when he's done, but it sounds like an insane
> amount of work!
>
> The LS-1 is another one of those situations where I say "I can afford
> a newer/better ship with my budget - so why buy something older?" *For
> example: *There's a pretty nice LS-3 on Wings&Wheels for $24k. *OTHER
> than price, why would I go with an LS-1 instead of an LS-3? *Think the
> "heavy" LS-3 wings are that big of a deal?
>
> There have been steady advances in airfoils, ergonomics, safety, and
> materials-usage over the years. *I am hoping to leverage some of that
> with my budget - not get the cheapest glider I can that meets a bare
> minimum of my criteria.
>
> Anyone have further thoughts (or a critique of my position)?
>
> Thanks, take care,
>
> --Noel
> P.S. *Martin - AFAIK, the 3000-hour issue on the Pegasus is still a
> problem in the USA. :-(

Noel,

What LS1 model are you talking about? Don't know if you realize that
the "f" is quite different from the earlier variants. As I said it's
very very similar to the LS4 (fuselage and empenage almost identical),
although does have the same airfoil as the earlier LS1's. However the
wing incidence has been adjusted to allow better performance at higher
speeds and it's structurally stronger allowing a higher max gross
weight to carry more water if desired. I nice LS1f that's been
refinished in recent years would be a very nice ship for the money.
Should cost you less than $20k. An LS4 these days will easily cost you
$30k+ "IF" you can find one. Of course the LS1f's aren't easy to find
either.


Dave

[Andreas Maurer]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 07:58:57 -0800 (PST), "noel.wade"
> wrote:


>BTW, according to Johnson the JS2 L/D
>was 36:1, not 38:1. So no, it doesn't meet my "38:1" criteria.

Hi Noel,

an advice: Don't stick too close to numbers. Performance numbers of
glider differ vastly depending on who measured them (Johnson or the
German Idaflieg), and, more important:
Sheer performance numbers are only one part of the truth.
In reality you are not going to notice if your ship has two points
better L/D or a slightly better sink rate.



Bye
Andreas

[Cats]

On Jan 9, 3:58*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
<snip>
> P.S. *Martin - AFAIK, the 3000-hour issue on the Pegasus is still a
> problem in the USA. :-(

So you don't fancy relocating to Europe? :)

[noel.wade]

On Jan 9, 9:12 am, Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> an advice: Don't stick too close to numbers. Performance numbers of
> glider differ vastly depending on who measured them (Johnson or the
> German Idaflieg), and, more important:
> Sheer performance numbers are only one part of the truth.
> In reality you are not going to notice if your ship has two points
> better L/D or a slightly better sink rate.
>
> Bye
> Andreas


I totally agree with you on the numbers deal - especially when it
comes to manufacturer's specs! And I know that small variances in
finishing and mold changes over the years can affect the L/D by a
point or two. But at least with Johnson (and other practical flight
tests) I have demonstrated numbers that have actually been measured
*in flight* - not theoretical or predicted numbers.

And I understand that I won't notice one or two points of L/D - that's
why I'm going for a jump from ~31:1 to at least 38:1. That big of a
spread I _will_ notice.

The reason I use sink-rate as a measure of performance is because it
directly affects climb rate in a thermal, and just trying to figure
out which airplane "thermals best" is subjective, dependant upon
conditions, and plain tough to get an accurate reading on (especially
because so few people have flown a wide range of gliders over the
years - so there's little common basis for direct comparison).

Dave - The 1f is cool; but the two that I've found talk about having
rough finishes. A glider that old/cheap is just not worth the cost to
refinishing... Again, its not that I don't like them; but do you
think that an $18k LS-1f is a better purchase than a good-condition
LS-3 at $24k? The difference in monthly loan cost is not an issue for
me (I'm not rich, but I've carefully budgetted to handle $8k to $10k
down and a $15k to $18k loan).

Having only flown my Russia, Blanik L-13s, and SGS 2-33s I think I
ought to follow through with my original plan to visit Minden sometime
soon and try their Mini, LS-3a, and LS-4. I need some seat-time in
15m ships to see how they compare to my Russia...

Thanks again, all! The conversation is certainly good for helping
organize my thoughts and refine my opinions.

Anyone have any info about SZD-55's? I had two people email me
privately to say that they thought I could pick one up for around my
$30k limit - but those folks were in England and I haven't heard
anyone from the USA talk about this model. It got plenty of favorable
reviews when it came out... ??

Take care,

--Noel

[Papa3]

On Jan 8, 9:48*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> > That's an easy one. LS4 or DG300 will be your best bet for 30K.
>
> > Ramy
>
> Never seen an LS-4 for sale; and I *love* our two local DG-300's - but
> the ones I've seen online seem to go for closer to $40k or $50k!
> Thought they were out of my budget (unless people are asking for WAY
> more than they're actually selling the aircraft for)...
>
> --Noel

LS4s that you'll find for under 30K are probably getting toward the
end of their Gelcoat life. However, there are some beauties out there
that have been refinished and can probably had for "low/mid 30s".

Fact is, any of the ships of the generation you are talking about are
going to be suffering from Gelcoat issues if they haven't already been
refinished; it's only a question of exactly when, not if they're going
to need to be redone. Given that, I think you're first decision
should be based on the specific ships that you find on the market
rather than the "theoretical" performance figures. If it were my
$30K, I would be very comfortable with pretty much any of the ships
discussed in this thread with special preference given to LS3, LS4,
ASW19, DG300 since I think they might be marginally easier to
resell.

FWIW, I had some success years ago beating the bushes to find LS4s
that "weren't for sale" by going through the registration database.
I found one or two that could've been pried away from the owners for a
fair price, even though they hadn't listed them (yet).

[Nick Olson]

>Anyone have any info about SZD-55's? I had two people
>email me
>privately to say that they thought I could pick one
>up for around my
>$30k limit - but those folks were in England and I
>haven't heard
>anyone from the USA talk about this model. It got
>plenty of favorable
>reviews when it came out... ??

Would appreciate knowing where those 30k SZD 55's are!
(and if they need a refinish- seem to rember something
about shrinkage around the spar caps) Haven't seen
one for sale for under 40k+.

Johnsons test:-

http://web.archive.org/web/20030412192209/www.ssa.org/Johnson/65-1
992-03.pdf

I know he wrote a later article about the spar shrinkage
and its effects on L/D

Ed Hollestelle's views:-
http://www.wgc.mb.ca/sac/freeflight/92_05.pdf

[Paul Hanson]

Noel, 30k dollars will not get you a 55, but perhaps
30k pounds would, 30k Euros may even pull it off, but
not USD. The 55 is a nice standard class. It was SZD's
answer to the Discus.
I recently bought an SZD-59, which as the acro adaptation
of the Std-3. It has all the performance of the Std-3
(38/1 @ 70kts and 130fpm @ 43kts, MEASURED by Johnson,
in 15m config with 36/1 @ 70kts and 135 fpm at 43kts
in 13m), in all measurable fields except with a much
higher roll rate. It will fly circles (literally) around
a Std 3 though, as it has double the aileron, lots
more rudder and elevator as well, and it is stressed
for +7 to -5 G's with the outboard 1m tips removed
(in 15m it is still Jar 22, + 5.65 to - 3.5), boasting
a 2.6 roll rate (45 to 45 degrees at 50 kts). Airbrakes
and main wheel can be operated up t VNE, which is 154
kts with the 13m wing and 143 kts in std mode. There
are only a dozen or so in the states, and I am not
selling mine. One just sold off of WingsandWheels for
$33k. The extra $3k on your budjet would have been
well worth it. The ship is easy to rig, and an absolute
joy to fly. I have yet to hear anyone who has any experience
with them speak badly about them. If one of these
is in your reach though, it really is a very nice ship,
with 2 distinct personalities (13/15m modes). The
Johnson/Carswell report on it is worth reading.


Paul Hanson

At 18:12 09 January 2008, Noel.Wade wrote:
>On Jan 9, 9:12 am, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>> an advice: Don't stick too close to numbers. Performance
>>numbers of
>> glider differ vastly depending on who measured them
>>(Johnson or the
>> German Idaflieg), and, more important:
>> Sheer performance numbers are only one part of the
>>truth.
>> In reality you are not going to notice if your ship
>>has two points
>> better L/D or a slightly better sink rate.
>>
>> Bye
>> Andreas
>
>
>I totally agree with you on the numbers deal - especially
>when it
>comes to manufacturer's specs! And I know that small
>variances in
>finishing and mold changes over the years can affect
>the L/D by a
>point or two. But at least with Johnson (and other
>practical flight
>tests) I have demonstrated numbers that have actually
>been measured
>*in flight* - not theoretical or predicted numbers.
>
>And I understand that I won't notice one or two points
>of L/D - that's
>why I'm going for a jump from ~31:1 to at least 38:1.
> That big of a
>spread I _will_ notice.
>
>The reason I use sink-rate as a measure of performance
>is because it
>directly affects climb rate in a thermal, and just
>trying to figure
>out which airplane 'thermals best' is subjective, dependant
>upon
>conditions, and plain tough to get an accurate reading
>on (especially
>because so few people have flown a wide range of gliders
>over the
>years - so there's little common basis for direct comparison).
>
>Dave - The 1f is cool; but the two that I've found
>talk about having
>rough finishes. A glider that old/cheap is just not
>worth the cost to
>refinishing... Again, its not that I don't like them;
>but do you
>think that an $18k LS-1f is a better purchase than
>a good-condition
>LS-3 at $24k? The difference in monthly loan cost
>is not an issue for
>me (I'm not rich, but I've carefully budgetted to handle
>$8k to $10k
>down and a $15k to $18k loan).
>
>Having only flown my Russia, Blanik L-13s, and SGS
>2-33s I think I
>ought to follow through with my original plan to visit
>Minden sometime
>soon and try their Mini, LS-3a, and LS-4. I need some
>seat-time in
>15m ships to see how they compare to my Russia...
>
>Thanks again, all! The conversation is certainly good
>for helping
>organize my thoughts and refine my opinions.
>
>Anyone have any info about SZD-55's? I had two people
>email me
>privately to say that they thought I could pick one
>up for around my
>$30k limit - but those folks were in England and I
>haven't heard
>anyone from the USA talk about this model. It got
>plenty of favorable
>reviews when it came out... ??
>
>Take care,
>
>--Noel
>

[[email protected]]

On Jan 7, 12:36*am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Assuming a budget of under $30k, I'm looking at upgrading my Russia
> AC-4. *She's an excellent ship and I could do a whole lot more with
> her... But with our weak conditions locally, I find myself itching for
> a few more points of glide (currently about 31:1) and a lower min-sink
> (currently somewhere around 130-140 fpm). *A promotion will be
> forthcoming soon, and I've decided to take some of those dollars and
> sink them into a better toy (to the detriment of my retirement fund,
> I'm sure *chuckle*).
>
> I fly in the Seattle area, where we regularly see cloud-bases of about
> 4k AGL, and only 2-4 knot lift. *Winds tend to be only moderate, so
> I'm more interested in a "floater" than a heavy/fast ship. I will be
> doing little (if any) competitive flying; I just want to have fun, go
> on decent X/C flights, and not get shot down on weak days when the
> thermals are a few miles apart... *Hypothetical situation: *I fly 4
> miles to check out potential lift and I have to bail back to my
> starting point. *Over that 8 miles I give up ~600 ft more altitude
> than a decent 15m ship. *If my starting altitude is only 3k - 4k, that
> extra 600 ft means a lot!
>
> BUT, I must say that the quick rigging of the Russia and its automatic
> control hookups are really, really nice (as is its maneuverability and
> other handling qualities). *Many of the ships I'm looking at lack
> those qualities, so I'm hesitant. *If the Dollar wasn't so weak vs.
> the Euro, I'd look seriously at buying an Apis kit...
>
> Bottom line: *I want a 15m ship, and want it to be easy to rig and fly
> (so I fly it more often). *It has to be a good weak-weather performer,
> and cost less than $30k (preferably closer to $25k).
>
> The top names that spring to mind are: *Mini-Nimbus, Mosquito, LS-3.
> (And yes I've read the Moffat article, Johnson Reports, and done a
> crap-load of research online about these planes)
>
> I've long liked the Mini's lower sink rate, lighter weight, and
> automatic hookups. However, the seating ergonomics and visibility look
> (from photos) like they're not as good as the other two. *Its also not
> as pretty of a ship, but that's a seriously minor concern (hell, I fly
> a RUSSIA right now, remember!). *The other selling point of the Mini
> is that "b" and "c" models (with the improved tail) can be had for
> around $20k - $24k.
>
> The Mosquito is slightly heavier than the Mini (though it has the same
> wing). *This translates into a slightly higher min-sink rate. *But it
> appears to have better ergonomics, better visibility, and a reputation
> for high-quality construction. *Unfortunately this costs $$ - with
> Mosquitos seemingly selling for near $30k.
>
> The LS-3 is around $25k, has some of the best performance numbers, and
> is reportedly very good in climb. *However, it has NO automatic
> hookups and the wings are a fair bit heavier to handle than the other
> two gliders. *It has the highest min-sink by a small margin.
> Ergonomics are supposedly good (other than the flap & airbrake handles
> having to be operated together); but I've never seen one in person.
> The high weight and lack of automatic hookups bug me, but the price-
> performance point is nice.
>
> I've chatted with Mini and Mosquito pilots (its surprisingly hard to
> find someone who's flown both), and am hoping to fly both a Mini and
> an LS-3a at Minden this winter/spring (though if I buy one, I think
> I'd prefer the flaperon LS-3). *No clear decision as of yet...
>
> Anyone care to toss in their opinions and thoughts?
>
> Any alternate suggestions of aircraft I may have overlooked?
>
> Thanks, take care,
>
> --Noel

Okay, I've got my flame suit on.
You might not want to completely disregard the Grob Speed Astir IIB.
I have a Speed Astir II, (my first glider) and I'm very happy with
it. Reasonable performance (40ish:1), low cost, good gelcoat, and
cheap. Disregard claims that they're hard to rig. Only one ship at
Jean assembles more quickly, and that's a Libelle. OTOH, maybe I just
like it because I don't know any better. I've logged 392 hours in mine
since I got it in Dec of 03.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Jan 9, 2:42 am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Thanks Adam, but I'm not interested in a medium-performance metal
> ship. The Jantar Standard 2 is a fine first ship; but its not enough
> of a performance jump from my Russia to be an appealing choice.
>
> I believe that my budget affords ships that are newer and have better
> performance - whether they're standard-class or flapped. And I am
> more interested in those options.
>
> Appreciate it, though!
>
> --Noel

[Frank Whiteley]

On Jan 9, 2:42 am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Thanks Adam, but I'm not interested in a medium-performance metal
> ship. The Jantar Standard 2 is a fine first ship; but its not enough
> of a performance jump from my Russia to be an appealing choice.
>
> I believe that my budget affords ships that are newer and have better
> performance - whether they're standard-class or flapped. And I am
> more interested in those options.
>
> Appreciate it, though!
>
> --Noel
Std Jantars are glass and strong. Consider the following world
record.

Speed over a triangular course of 100 km : 249.09 km/h

Date of flight: 01/12/2003
Pilot: Horacio MIRANDA (Argentina)
Course/place: Chos Malal (Argentina)

Glider: PZL-Bielsko SZD-48-1 Jantar Standard 2
Registered 'LVDPD'

I'm from the PNW and spent 10.5 soaring in UK conditions. If I wanted
a 'floater', I'd get a 17m-19m ship. Several are no more vintage than
the 15m gliders mentioned here, though auto hooks are a non-runner.
Rigging is not difficult with the proper kit.

Frank Whiteley

[noel.wade]

On Jan 9, 11:48*am, wrote:
> Okay, I've got my flame suit on.
> You might not want to completely disregard the Grob Speed Astir IIB.
> I have a Speed Astir II, (my first glider) and I'm very happy with

James -

No flame suit needed, different strokes for different folks!

The reason I've discounted the Speed Astir is that it has a relatively
high sink rate (even higher than my small-wing Russia), and an Eppler
662 airfoil. That's not a "bad" airfoil - but history has shown that
the later airfoils (Wortmann, Boermanns, Horst & Quast, etc) are
superior in a several ways.

Thanks for the alternative suggestion, though! Its always good to
hear about more choices.

Take care,

--Noel

[Andreas Maurer[_1_]]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:12:08 -0800 (PST), "noel.wade"
> wrote:

> But at least with Johnson (and other practical flight
>tests) I have demonstrated numbers that have actually been measured
>*in flight* - not theoretical or predicted numbers.

I'm pretty sure that at least for all German gliders younger than 30
years you can trust the published performances - in Germany the
idaflieg measuy every glider type with extremely elaborate yet precise
procedures - if the numbers they got were far off, word about that
would spread quickly.
Dick Johnson also does a great job, but he has a couple of performance
numbers of certain gliders that are simply far off since he is not
able to put the same amount of work into his research as idaflieg
does.


>And I understand that I won't notice one or two points of L/D - that's
>why I'm going for a jump from ~31:1 to at least 38:1. That big of a
>spread I _will_ notice.

Yup.
But trust me - you won't feel a difference between 36:1 and 38:1...
but you are going to feel the difference between 31:1 and 1:36. <vbg>

I am pretty sure that any glider that was produced after the ASW-15 is
going to fit your performance demand - all of them have at least 38:1.

>The reason I use sink-rate as a measure of performance is because it
>directly affects climb rate in a thermal, and just trying to figure
>out which airplane "thermals best" is subjective, dependant upon
>conditions, and plain tough to get an accurate reading on (especially
>because so few people have flown a wide range of gliders over the
>years - so there's little common basis for direct comparison).

Forget that approach to judge a glider. :)

Pure sink rates don't work - you also need to incorporate the airspeed
in your judgement since this decides about turn radius. Not to mention
the "feeling" of the glider - LS-7 and ASW-24 have a very good sink
rate on paper, yet their airfoils need to be flown very precisely
compared to other gliders, so most pilots ended climbing significantly
worse than older gliders with a higher sink rate.

My advice: base your judgement on ergonomics (cockpit, handling on
gound and in the air, trailer) - this is going to have a far greater
influence on your performance than pure glider performance numbers.

>Having only flown my Russia, Blanik L-13s, and SGS 2-33s I think I
>ought to follow through with my original plan to visit Minden sometime
>soon and try their Mini, LS-3a, and LS-4. I need some seat-time in
>15m ships to see how they compare to my Russia...

I promise: you are going to be blown away by their performance - and
you are not going to be able to judge which of them has the better
performances. Especially flapped ships need a couple of dozen of hours
to get used to if you haven't got experience on flapped
high-performance ships yet.
>
>Anyone have any info about SZD-55's? I had two people email me
>privately to say that they thought I could pick one up for around my
>$30k limit - but those folks were in England and I haven't heard
>anyone from the USA talk about this model. It got plenty of favorable
>reviews when it came out... ??

Few SZD-55s around, but one german top pilot used to fly one for a
long time and was very satisfied - so it seems it's comparabley in any
way to current (German) standard classgliders. You can get a
comparably young 55 for the same price as an aolder German ship.
Definitely worth a closer look.


Bye
Andreas

[noel.wade]

On Jan 9, 5:07*pm, Andreas Maurer > wrote:

> But trust me - you won't feel a difference between 36:1 and 38:1...
> but you are going to feel the difference between 31:1 and 1:36. *<vbg>

Hey, I took a flight in the front seat of a DG-1000. Want to talk
about a differencein L/D? heheheheh...

> Pure sink rates don't work - you also need to incorporate the airspeed
> in your judgement since this decides about turn radius. Not to mention

Fair enough. This is also where flaps can help - moderate flap
application = lower speed thermalling; so as long as the drag isn't
too bad from the flap deployment you should have a net gain in climb
performance as you can make tighter thermal turns.

But my Russia stalls at around 39 kts indicated (I am 200 lbs and 6'
tall - a big American *sigh*)... The aircraft really likes a 45-
degree thermal turn at about 48 - 50 knots (min-sink speed is around
42kts so that jibes well with the load-factor of a 45-degree turn).

I think most of the gliders from the late 70's and early 80's have
similar stalling speeds - so as long as I stick to models that have
the good roll control and responsiveness that I seek, their ability to
have a tight thermalling circle should be adequate.

> I promise: you are going to be blown away by their performance - and
> you are not going to be able to judge which of them has the better
> performances. Especially flapped ships need a couple of dozen of hours

Well I've flown my Russia AC-4 *alongside*:
Apis 13m (equal in climb, small but noticeable difference in height
per mile of cruise),
PIK-20B (could out-thermal it, but not keep up on glide),
1-34 (Russia was noticeably better all around; though not by a big
margin),
Chinook S 17m (I was slightly worse in climb, no comparison in
glide),
Open Cirrus (I had the slight edge in climb w/small circles; but the
damned Cirrus just defies gravity and lumbers along for miles),
Blanik L-13 (I was slightly better in glide, slightly better on a
ridge, and noticeably better in thermals),
DG-1000 (hahahahaha! "alongside" is almost a misnomer...)

Plus I have my Private Pilot's License in single-engine aircraft (got
that before starting in gliders) - so I'm familiar with flaps and that
stuff...

> way to current (German) standard classgliders. You can get a
> comparably young 55 for the same price as an aolder German ship.
> Definitely worth a closer look.

Huh. Lot of varying opinions about that it seems! Some people seem
to think I could get one for around $30k, others think $50k - $60k...
interesting. Can I have one of you "cheaper" people call some SZD-55
owners and convince them to sell it for less? *grin*

Thanks all, don't be shy to pile on more feedback! :-)

--Noel

[Andreas Maurer[_1_]]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 17:48:11 -0800 (PST), "noel.wade"
> wrote:

>Fair enough. This is also where flaps can help - moderate flap
>application = lower speed thermalling; so as long as the drag isn't
>too bad from the flap deployment you should have a net gain in climb
>performance as you can make tighter thermal turns.

Unfortunately it's not that way, at least not in the flapped gliders I
fly. ;)

Usually you don't thermal a flapped glider significantly slower nor do
you climb better than a non-flapped ship.
The advantage is that you can ballast a flapped glider to higher wing
loadings (while still being able to thermal halfways slowly) to
increase your cruise speed - and of course the flatter polar at higher
speeds even without ballast.

In weak weather there's really no noticable performance difference
between flapped and non-flapped gliders - but the better the weather
(=higher wing loading and higher cruise speeds), the bigger the
difference.


>But my Russia stalls at around 39 kts indicated (I am 200 lbs and 6'
>tall - a big American *sigh*)...

LOL... I'm as heavy as you, but 7" taller...

>I think most of the gliders from the late 70's and early 80's have
>similar stalling speeds - so as long as I stick to models that have
>the good roll control and responsiveness that I seek, their ability to
>have a tight thermalling circle should be adequate.

Indeed.

>Well I've flown my Russia AC-4 *alongside*:
>Apis 13m (equal in climb, small but noticeable difference in height
>per mile of cruise),

The Apis has pretty good numbers on paper, but I suspect that its low
wing loading makes penetration at higher speeds bad compared to a
ballasted Standard class glider.


>Plus I have my Private Pilot's License in single-engine aircraft (got
>that before starting in gliders) - so I'm familiar with flaps and that
>stuff...

Not even similar, I'm afraid. :)
Perhaps I was spoiled by the ASW-20 that way my first flapped glider,
but at least in the 20 I had the feeling that I needed about 50 hours
until I felt I had mastered it halways because especially the 20 needs
pretty precise adjustment of the flap setting to the current speed,
wing- and g-loading, meaning that the left hand is nearly as busy as
the right one.
The LS-3 is easier to handle (wrong flap settings have less negative
influence on the performance), the optimum is probably the DG-300 and
LS-4... lol.

Think twice if you really need flaps on your glider (and if youre
willing to pay them) - if the weather is really weak in the area you
fly in, flaps won't give you a noticeable performance advantage.


>Huh. Lot of varying opinions about that it seems! Some people seem
>to think I could get one for around $30k, others think $50k - $60k...
>interesting. Can I have one of you "cheaper" people call some SZD-55
>owners and convince them to sell it for less? *grin*

The problem on oyur side of the pond is the very limited number of
available used gliders. Move to Europe. Plenty of really good used
gliders here.

Bye
Andreas

[Shawn[_4_]]

Frank Whiteley wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2:42 am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>> Thanks Adam, but I'm not interested in a medium-performance metal
>> ship. The Jantar Standard 2 is a fine first ship; but its not enough
>> of a performance jump from my Russia to be an appealing choice.
>>
>> I believe that my budget affords ships that are newer and have better
>> performance - whether they're standard-class or flapped. And I am
>> more interested in those options.
>>
>> Appreciate it, though!
>>
>> --Noel
> Std Jantars are glass and strong. Consider the following world
> record.
>
> Speed over a triangular course of 100 km : 249.09 km/h
>
> Date of flight: 01/12/2003
> Pilot: Horacio MIRANDA (Argentina)
> Course/place: Chos Malal (Argentina)
>
> Glider: PZL-Bielsko SZD-48-1 Jantar Standard 2
> Registered 'LVDPD'

Insanely fast. Must've been something like one of the "Power" online
tasks for Condor!


Shawn

[LOV2AV8]

I've been following this post with some interest as I used to own a
Russia AC-4c. I moved up to a Zuni II and also 1/2 of an LS-8. Last
year, I took a club member on a drag and drop. He flew my Zuni with
me in the LS-8. After a decent 200km flight, we were on a final glide
home. After 26 miles at 80-90 kts, the Zuni was 1000' lower than the
LS-8. So 5 times the price will get you a 1000' in 26 miles. The
Zuni will also thermal with a PW5. There is now another Zuni on the
field at Tucson. I really enjoy my Zuni.

Randy "AV8"

[noel.wade]

On Jan 10, 8:58*am, LOV2AV8 > wrote:
> I've been following this post with some interest as I used to own a
> Russia AC-4c. *I moved up to a Zuni II and also 1/2 of an LS-8. *Last

Thanks, Randy!

As far as specs and performance and looks, I like the Zuni II. I just
really did not like the all-flying-tail coupled with the push/pull
stick arrangement. Plus, the flap crank-handle interfered with my
leg. :-/

I am in agreeance with you as well, that the large extra cost of newer
gliders only nets you a small performance gain. However, it does get
you a better surface finish (usually), probably a nicer trailer,
better cockpit safety & ergonomics, and other intangibles.

That's why I've set a budget, set certain benchmarks, and am looking
to maximize the glider I can get for that budget and with those
benchmarks (instead of purely looking for max performance, or purely
looking for the cheapest solution). :-) It makes things more
complicated; but also makes me a more happy owner in the end - or at
least that's the theory!!

Take care,

--Noel