Medium performance gliders

[[email protected]]

I have read many posts about how gliders like the PW5, L33, and other
similar performance gliders are not the greatest cross country gliders
and that for the same money you can get older higher performance
gliders. My question is, if you forget about dollars per L/D, do
these type of gliders have enough performance to not cause frustration
in the beginner cross country pilot? Another question is, would the
avg pilot be satisfied with these for a few years or would most really
get the itch to trade sooner?

Thanks

[[email protected]]

I think the answer depends on how much you fly in each of the first 3
years. And on how quickly you get comfortable with getting away from
the field. And who you fly with.

You could fly low hours for 3 years and still feel challenged, but if
you have the spare time to fly a lot you might get frustrated in your
second season. And local conditions affect that, look at what fun they
have with 1-26's on the ridge!

If your buddy has a better ship, then you will not be happy as he
leaves you behind every flight.

I know one who shared/rented a PW5, had some good flights and moved
along to higher performance because he could not get far. And another
who thought an ASW19 would be great for many years... and know is
'kind of' looking because he can get left behind on occasion.

So, lots of factors. I had great fun for many years in a 1:34 ship,
but I bumped into a wall when trying to get much over 300K in my local
conditions. But I never lost a penny on resale. So it was
inexpensive.

I am not saying don't plan on a season or two of lower performance,
that will certainly make you a better pilot on weak days. But DO pick
a ship you know you can resell quickly when the bug bites! as I know
it will!

Good luck!



On Mar 8, 11:18 am, wrote:
> I have read many posts about how gliders like the PW5, L33, and other
> similar performance gliders are not the greatest cross country gliders
> and that for the same money you can get older higher performance
> gliders. My question is, if you forget about dollars per L/D, do
> these type of gliders have enough performance to not cause frustration
> in the beginner cross country pilot? Another question is, would the
> avg pilot be satisfied with these for a few years or would most really
> get the itch to trade sooner?
>
> Thanks

[Bob Whelan[_2_]]

wrote:
> I have read many posts about how gliders like the PW5, L33, and other
> similar performance gliders are not the greatest cross country gliders
> and that for the same money you can get older higher performance
> gliders. My question is, if you forget about dollars per L/D, do
> these type of gliders have enough performance to not cause frustration
> in the beginner cross country pilot? Another question is, would the
> avg pilot be satisfied with these for a few years or would most really
> get the itch to trade sooner?
>
> Thanks
Oh my. Did you *mean* to start another religious war? :)

The one word answer to your question, "do [PW5, L33, and other similar
performance] type of gliders have enough performance to not cause
frustration in the beginner cross country pilot?" is "Yes."

A slightly longer answer is, "Yes,but...the devil is in the details."
Details such as 'who' Joe Pilot as a person is, where/terrain-over-which
s/he soars, personal goals (short term ones aren't necessarily long[er]
term ones), who Joe Pilot will become after a few seasons of seasoning.
Naysayers will be happy to cite Chapter and Verse (complete with
charts and graphs) 'proving' their view is correct *and* the only one of
any real value. Lowlifes such as 1-26 drivers (WARNING: dry humor
nearby!!!), may beg to differ.

As to your question:
> would the
> avg pilot be satisfied with these for a few years or would most really
> get the itch to trade sooner?

that - to me - is unanswerable, so ripe as it is with imponderables,
'plicit' (e.g. 'avg pilot,' 'few years,' 'itch to trade sooner') and
implicit.

Writing as one who's followed the 1-26->'high-performance 15-meter' path
(at a time your intermediate-performance-referenced gliders didn't
exist), I never felt (and don't now feel) any of my glider time was
wasted or misdirected. I've learned valuable lessons from each ship
type flown - & flew/fly every single seater XC (that being what I most
enjoy). I learned the basics of safe XC in 1-26s, and enjoyed every
second (including the frustrating, stuck becuzza insuffient L/D ones!).

IMHO, a valid argument can be made lower/intermediate performance ships
permit/encourage/make-necessary the (relatively low-stress/cost)
accumulation of off-field assessment/landing skills, which (unarguably,
in my view) are things every wannabe XC soaring pilot needs. I've seen
a whole lot more people enter (and leave) the sport for reasons related
to insufficient XC skills (e.g. fear, accident cost [imagined and
real]), than I have enter & leave for insufficient ship performance
reasons. At the (very real) risk of erring through oversimplification,
when the hassle of retrieves grows wearisome, is as good an indicator as
any of an individual's growing off-field competency and 'readiness' for
a longer-legged ship. Sure, there's an obvious paradox/contradiction
there, but would you rather ding a lowish-dollar toy, or a
faster-landing, higher-energy, considerably more expensive toy, due to
off-field ignorance and general inexperience? Make no mistake - the
potential for 'dings' is part of transferring 'book XC knowledge' into
'actual XC knowledge.' Safe XC is a matter of identifying (ideally,
beforehand), and learning to effectively deal with stresses (not fully
comprehensible until experienced as solo PIC).

Quoting from some unremembered Greek soaring pilot: "Soaring Pilot -
know thyself!"

Any ship purchased in such light will serve you and your needs well.
Should your druthers change through experience, any such ship can be
resold for pretty much what you paid for it (so long as you've been a
good steward of it).

Have fun along the way!

Regards,
Bob - with but one fabric 1-26 'ding' to my OFL credit - W.

[Dave Rolley[_2_]]

When I went through that phase the "medium performance" glider was the
SGS 1-34. I enjoyed the ship. If the glider had been easier to
assemble/disassemble, I'd have purchased one or a SGS 1-35.

It never really bothered me that I wasn't covering the miles others were
in their ASW-19/20, LS-whatever, or SH whatever. I was too busy
learning how to fly cross country. One of our club members has a L-33
and seems to really enjoy it. There are a couple of Russias on the
field and their owners seem to enjoy them.

More than the performance, you'll get frustrated with difficulty
handling a glider on the ground. Look for a glider with a trailer and
support equipment that makes it reasonably easy to assemble and handle
the glider. You'll appreciate it when you are disassembling in a field
after dark. Been there, done that. As have almost everyone on this
newsgroup.

Dave

wrote:
> I have read many posts about how gliders like the PW5, L33, and other
> similar performance gliders are not the greatest cross country gliders
> and that for the same money you can get older higher performance
> gliders. My question is, if you forget about dollars per L/D, do
> these type of gliders have enough performance to not cause frustration
> in the beginner cross country pilot? Another question is, would the
> avg pilot be satisfied with these for a few years or would most really
> get the itch to trade sooner?
>
> Thanks

[Cats]

On Mar 8, 5:04*pm, wrote:
<SNIP>
> And local conditions affect that, look at what fun they
> have with 1-26's on the ridge!
<snip>

Ridge flying was great to start with, now sharing our ridge with too
many other gliders and on some days paragliders makes being somewhere
else a highly desirable thing...

[toad]

That depends ! "Know thyself" is the most important thing.

Do you want to:
Keep up (even come close) to higher performance gliders ?
Fly contests ? (handicaps won't make flying a task possible on a
really weak day)
Mind landing out more ? (good retrieve crew)

Why would you want to by a low-med performance glider, even though a
used med-high performance is available for the same price ? One
design racing for the PW5 has bitten the dust. If you want one
design, get a 1-26.

I know that I would be frustrated in a PW-5 or L33, because the
conditions here in the Northeast USA often get marginal for those
gliders. You would struggle more and tend to land out more. I have
seen my friends with those gliders be frustrated with their XC
performance. You would not be able to tag along behind any of you
glider buddies and you better have a good retrieve crew.

But remember the choices are not just PW-5 or ASG-29 there is a whole
range of price/performance points. You specifically ask to ignore the
price but cheaper is the only advantage a medium performance glider
has.

Todd Smith
Grob 102 (1:36)
3S

[JJ Sinclair]

On Mar 8, 8:18*am, wrote:
> I have read many posts about how gliders like the PW5, L33, and other
> similar performance gliders are not the greatest cross country gliders
> and that for the same money you can get older higher performance
> gliders. *My question is, if you forget about dollars per L/D, do
> these type of gliders have enough performance to not cause frustration
> in the beginner cross country pilot? *Another question is, would the
> avg pilot be satisfied with these for a few years or would most really
> get the itch to trade sooner?
>
> Thanks

Story time........Hobbs Standards & PW-5 nats............3000' cloud
base.............everyone took a start and headed
out .................first thermal 20 moles out..............all
standard ships made it.................none of the PW-5
did........enough said?.........Dick Johnson wrote a paper a few years
back that said you need 35:1 to successfully go cross-country on a
regular basis.
I'd buy a Libelle or better,
JJ
Or, how about the DG-300 I'm finishing up right now? Completely
refinished in acrylic urethane, B-100 & B-400, Becker radio, Model 20
GPS/data logger, Winter vario, nelson oxygen, ASI, Alt, compas, Cobra
trailer.......will paint contest numbers and install your choice of
computer, if you proffer. Damage history = broken boom. $38,500.00.

PS; I owned & operated an FAA certified glider repair station prior to
retiring 10 years back.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 8, 9:18*am, wrote:
> My question is, if you forget about dollars per L/D, do
> these type of gliders have enough performance to not cause frustration
> in the beginner cross country pilot? *Another question is, would the
> avg pilot be satisfied with these for a few years or would most really
> get the itch to trade sooner?

I agree whole heartedly with Bob Whalen's post. There are so many
variables within the individual as well as where they fly. I have an
L33 (the one mentioned in Dave Rolley's reply) and have thoroughly
enjoyed owning and flying it. It is my first glider (purchased Nov
2001) and with it I learned to fly (motorless) cross country. It is
still a joy to fly; even on weak days.

Now I must admit that living and flying in Region 9 has made this ship
much more viable for cross country challenges. The peak season days
here make gold badge flights very possible. I've also taken it to two
sports class regionals and been very happy with the outcomes. Each
flight was a great learning experience for me. The CD had some
challenges fitting me in with much higher performance gliders, but the
tasking was always fair and allowed all of us to get the most out of
our ships.

While many folks focus on total kilometers flown, OLC has really
allowed the shortwing crowd to have a different outlet. With the
points handicapping, this is very much like a daily sports class
event. Finishing ahead of a DuoDiscus, ASW-27 or Genesis2 sure makes
it easier to put aside any kind of L/D envy. Being able to come in
ahead of pricy glass ships has certainly helped me stay very satisfied
with my little wing, metal, fixed gear ship. But then again, that's
just me. Your results may vary.

Horst
L33

[Doug Hoffman]

wrote:

> I have read many posts about how gliders like the PW5, L33,
> and other
> similar performance gliders are not the greatest cross country
> gliders
> and that for the same money you can get older higher
> performance
> gliders. My question is, if you forget about dollars per L/D,
> do
> these type of gliders have enough performance to not cause
> frustration
> in the beginner cross country pilot? Another question is,
> would the
> avg pilot be satisfied with these for a few years or would
> most really
> get the itch to trade sooner?
>
> Thanks

Was it Derek Piggot that said "Buy all the performance you can
afford (all things being equal). Higher performance will lessen
the chance for landout during x-country."?

--
Regards,
Doug


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[ContestID67]

Having done just what you are talking about - buying my first glider
and getting serious about XC and worrying about being frustrated with
my choice - I did buy a medium performance ship (DG-101G ELAN which is
factory spec'd at 39:1) and have been very happy with it. Why this
ship? It was considered good (not great) performance, easy-ish to
rig, not very expensive, one was available (an important issue), while
being fairly docile (spelled s-a-f-e-r).

After four seasons am I itching for a better ship? I would say yes
but not terribly strongly. I have flown the DG in a few contests
(sports class) and had a lot of fun. I got my silver and one leg of a
gold in it. Supership? No. Fun for an early XC pilot. YES. Having
your own personal ship (versus a club or rental ship) opens all sorts
of doors allowing you to fly when YOU want to and when the day is
good.

Now, here come the "BUTs"....

But, I work full time so my flying is limited to weekends typically.
But, if I was retired and being able to fly much more often it might
be a different matter for me. Meaning I would have a stronger desire
to move up.

Good luck. Have fun. Stay safe.

- John

PS We have two PW-5's on the field and the comments I hear from the
owners are; 1) very light weight and easy to rig 2) very light weight
and doesn't penetrate well into head winds. Can't have everything, I
suppose, unless you go carbon fiber.

[Tim Mara]

absolutely!, in fact you shouldn't limit your glider search to just what is
or has been only recently offered..
many of us did and still do enjoy flying and going XC in K6's and gliders
that have less performance...they still, just as in their day, go XC just
fine....slower maybe but in many ways are even better to begin these
journeys with...they climb well, better than most super ships, land slower
and shorter and in many ways safer for the beginning XC flights... it's
actually a pity many have never had the chance or just looked past these
gliders and have missed much of what soaring is all about..
tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

> wrote in message
...
>I have read many posts about how gliders like the PW5, L33, and other
> similar performance gliders are not the greatest cross country gliders
> and that for the same money you can get older higher performance
> gliders. My question is, if you forget about dollars per L/D, do
> these type of gliders have enough performance to not cause frustration
> in the beginner cross country pilot? Another question is, would the
> avg pilot be satisfied with these for a few years or would most really
> get the itch to trade sooner?
>
> Thanks

[Eric Greenwell]

Doug Hoffman wrote:
Another question is,
>> would the
>> avg pilot be satisfied with these for a few years or would
>> most really
>> get the itch to trade sooner?
>>
>> Thanks
>
> Was it Derek Piggot that said "Buy all the performance you can
> afford (all things being equal). Higher performance will lessen
> the chance for landout during x-country."?

Landing out is a pilot choice, not an equipment attribute. The pilot
decides how important it is to return home, or if he prefers to land at
an airport instead of in a field, and flies accordingly. With 50:1,
he'll fly farther than with 25:1, but at the same risk of landing out.

I know many pilots in high performance gliders that don't land out, but
a lot of them are simply not pushing themselves or their glider very
hard. These pilots generally enjoy this more relaxed soaring, but it's
their choice not to land out, not something the equipment prevents.

A pilot that likes pushing the limits of his ability might consider the
advantages of a medium or lower performance glider: you are much closer
to home when you land out, and people are amazed at what you can
accomplish. The OLC Will reward you with high placings in the results.

And finally, I've seen pilots that moved into a high performance glider,
and flew cautiously and without much enjoyment, because they didn't have
the confidence to risk a land out in a 50' (or bigger) wingspan glider
that landed fast. They would've been better off in a 1-26, Ka-6, PW-5,
or similar, until their skills and confidence were greater.

So, speaking as former Ka-6e owner that got his diamonds in it, I had a
lot fun, and what I learned in it worked even better when I did get a
higher performance glider. I now fly a 50:1 glider, and "land-out" even
more often, because I push harder now. By "land-out", I mean I start the
motor to avoid actually putting the wheel in the dirt. It's great -
aggressive flying, and still home for beer and pizza!

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

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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

[[email protected]]

On Mar 8, 4:45*pm, toad > wrote:
> That depends ! *"Know thyself" is the most important thing.
>
> Do you want to:
> * *Keep up (even come close) to higher performance gliders ?
> * *Fly contests ? *(handicaps won't make flying a task possible on a
> really weak day)
> * *Mind landing out more ? * (good retrieve crew)
>
> Why would you want to by a low-med performance glider, even though a
> used med-high performance is available for the same price ? * One
> design racing for the PW5 has bitten the dust. *If you want one
> design, get a 1-26.
>
> I know that I would be frustrated in a PW-5 or L33, because the
> conditions here in the Northeast USA often get marginal for those
> gliders. *You would struggle more and tend to land out more. *I have
> seen my friends with those gliders be frustrated with their XC
> performance. *You would not be able to tag along behind any of you
> glider buddies and you better have a good retrieve crew.
>
> But remember the choices are not just PW-5 or ASG-29 *there is a whole
> range of price/performance points. *You specifically ask to ignore the
> price but cheaper is the only advantage a medium performance glider
> has.
>
> Todd Smith
> Grob 102 (1:36)
> 3S

David Stevenson placed second in the USA in the OLC for the year
2007. His longest flights were in a K6E. Nuff said...
Finger
Z2

[Brad[_2_]]

On Mar 8, 9:38*pm, " >
wrote:
> On Mar 8, 4:45*pm, toad > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > That depends ! *"Know thyself" is the most important thing.
>
> > Do you want to:
> > * *Keep up (even come close) to higher performance gliders ?
> > * *Fly contests ? *(handicaps won't make flying a task possible on a
> > really weak day)
> > * *Mind landing out more ? * (good retrieve crew)
>
> > Why would you want to by a low-med performance glider, even though a
> > used med-high performance is available for the same price ? * One
> > design racing for the PW5 has bitten the dust. *If you want one
> > design, get a 1-26.
>
> > I know that I would be frustrated in a PW-5 or L33, because the
> > conditions here in the Northeast USA often get marginal for those
> > gliders. *You would struggle more and tend to land out more. *I have
> > seen my friends with those gliders be frustrated with their XC
> > performance. *You would not be able to tag along behind any of you
> > glider buddies and you better have a good retrieve crew.
>
> > But remember the choices are not just PW-5 or ASG-29 *there is a whole
> > range of price/performance points. *You specifically ask to ignore the
> > price but cheaper is the only advantage a medium performance glider
> > has.
>
> > Todd Smith
> > Grob 102 (1:36)
> > 3S
>
> David Stevenson placed second in the USA in the OLC for the year
> 2007. *His longest flights were in a K6E. *Nuff said...
> Finger
> Z2- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I fly an Apis-13 an regularly fly XC and "local-XC".........it's
great.............and if I do need to land out, it is light enough and
can be slowed down enough to land in someones "back-
yard".............yep...........I do it again in a heart-beat!
Brad
199AK

[Ian]

On 8 Mar, 16:18, wrote:
> I have read many posts about how gliders like the PW5, L33, and other
> similar performance gliders are not the greatest cross country gliders
> and that for the same money you can get older higher performance
> gliders. My question is, if you forget about dollars per L/D, do
> these type of gliders have enough performance to not cause frustration
> in the beginner cross country pilot? Another question is, would the
> avg pilot be satisfied with these for a few years or would most really
> get the itch to trade sooner?

I think it's far too dependent on individual pilots, sites and areas.
I, for example, have no plans to get rid of the 34:1 wooden glider in
which I have been having fun for twelve (I think) years.

There are certainly a lot of pilots out there who buy performance for
their early cross country flying. They may be less frustrated
pilots ... but are they very good pilots?

Ian

[Doug Hoffman[_2_]]

Hi Eric,

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Doug Hoffman wrote:

>> Was it Derek Piggot that said "Buy all the performance you can afford
>> (all things being equal). Higher performance will lessen the chance
>> for landout during x-country."?
>
> Landing out is a pilot choice, not an equipment attribute. The pilot
> decides how important it is to return home, or if he prefers to land at
> an airport instead of in a field, and flies accordingly. With 50:1,
> he'll fly farther than with 25:1, but at the same risk of landing out.

So you don't recall if Derek said that (or something very similar) either?


> I know many pilots in high performance gliders that don't land out, but
> a lot of them are simply not pushing themselves or their glider very
> hard. These pilots generally enjoy this more relaxed soaring, but it's
> their choice not to land out, not something the equipment prevents.

Hypothetical situation (in time maybe not so hypothetical): In the
future we have 400 pound empty motorless 18 meter gliders with 80:1
glide and thermaling characteristics superior to a 1-26. Someone has a
restored a Schweizer 2-22. The 2-22 and the 18 meter take off for some
x-country flying here in Michigan on a typical weak day with 1-2 knot
thermals spread far apart with 3,000' AGL being the highest one can go.
I'd put my money on the likelihood of the 18 meter not landing out
compared to the 2-22. Landing out being defined here as landing in a
field not an airport. Here we have a *lot* of little airports/airstrips
peppered all over the place. If you get in trouble it is going to be
easy to get to an airstrip in the 18 meter. Call for an aero retrieve
and you land back at your home strip in 20 minutes. The 2-22 has a
decidedly less desirable ordeal having landed in a farmer's field (fetch
the trailer, disassemble in the field, etc.).


> I now fly a 50:1 glider, and "land-out" even
> more often, because I push harder now. By "land-out", I mean I start the
> motor to avoid actually putting the wheel in the dirt. It's great -
> aggressive flying, and still home for beer and pizza!

Yes, that would be great. But in 2008 the vast majority of us have to
deal with "real" land outs. Not knocking self-rescuing gliders, but I
am *far* more impressed by someone who flies a long distance on a weak
day in a motorless than someone who flies the same with a motor, all
other things being equal. The psychological experience (adrenaline
factor?) for the pilot in the motorless is a whole 'nuther thing
compared to the self-rescuing. Yes, I know that sometimes the motors
fail to start. My contention remains. Especially as motor
technology/reliability improves, which it has/is.

Regards,

-Doug

[JJ Sinclair]

I too got started in a wooden sailplane (27:1) and landed out in every
conceivable location in California and Nevada! I can still remember my
first flight in glass (Libelle), after a thoroughly enjoyable 3 hours,
I asked myself ; Why didn't you do this 400 hours ago? Don't go
cheep'o on your instruments and trailer, either. You will fight that
POS trailer everytime you put it together or take it apart. Get a
decent audio vario and GPS with computer that tells you the altitude
required to make it to the nearest suitable location (not necessarily
an airport).............Now go out and enjoy this sport and don't
spend 4 years learning everything the hard way!
JJ

[Brian[_1_]]

<snip>
> More than the performance, you'll get frustrated with difficulty
> handling a glider on the ground. *Look for a glider with a trailer and
> support equipment that makes it reasonably easy to assemble and handle
> the glider. *You'll appreciate it when you are disassembling in a field
> after dark. *Been there, done that. *As have almost everyone on this
> newsgroup.
>
> Dave


I have to second this statement. People kept telling me how hard the
1-26 was to assemble. With some work on the trailer and ground
equipment these same people were always amazed that I could go from
driving up to climbing into to cockpit in less than 25 minutes.

My current airplane an HP16T can be assembled to flight status in less
than 15 minutes.

Brian

[toad]

On Mar 9, 3:09 am, Brad > wrote:
> On Mar 8, 9:38 pm, " >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 4:45 pm, toad > wrote:
>
> > > That depends ! "Know thyself" is the most important thing.
>
> > > Do you want to:
> > > Keep up (even come close) to higher performance gliders ?
> > > Fly contests ? (handicaps won't make flying a task possible on a
> > > really weak day)
> > > Mind landing out more ? (good retrieve crew)
>
> > > Why would you want to by a low-med performance glider, even though a
> > > used med-high performance is available for the same price ? One
> > > design racing for the PW5 has bitten the dust. If you want one
> > > design, get a 1-26.
>
> > > I know that I would be frustrated in a PW-5 or L33, because the
> > > conditions here in the Northeast USA often get marginal for those
> > > gliders. You would struggle more and tend to land out more. I have
> > > seen my friends with those gliders be frustrated with their XC
> > > performance. You would not be able to tag along behind any of you
> > > glider buddies and you better have a good retrieve crew.
>
> > > But remember the choices are not just PW-5 or ASG-29 there is a whole
> > > range of price/performance points. You specifically ask to ignore the
> > > price but cheaper is the only advantage a medium performance glider
> > > has.
>
> > > Todd Smith
> > > Grob 102 (1:36)
> > > 3S
>
> > David Stevenson placed second in the USA in the OLC for the year
> > 2007. His longest flights were in a K6E. Nuff said...
> > Finger
> > Z2- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I fly an Apis-13 an regularly fly XC and "local-XC".........it's
> great.............and if I do need to land out, it is light enough and
> can be slowed down enough to land in someones "back-
> yard".............yep...........I do it again in a heart-beat!
> Brad
> 199AK

I would consider buying a K6, K8 or 1-26. I'm too heavy to fit in some
of the new real lightweight gliders, but they look interesting.

A selflaunch Silent Targa is what I would probably buy if I won a
small lottory. :-)

Toad

[[email protected]]

I have been fortunate in owning 3 gliders for many years - a
DG800B, Stemme S10 VT and a SparrowHawk. These 3
aircraft are the extremes. Also until very recently I flew club
ships such a a 1-34. Pegasus, Grob 102 and 103, DG 1000
etc. Why did I do that? Convenience! Rather than getting
one of my machines out Soar Minden would just place me
in their machine and off I would go. So what am I implying?
I find almost any glider enjoyable to fly and base each
flying experience on whether I have used the limitations
of that machine to its fullest.
I have probably got more fun out of the SparrowHawk than
all the other machines put together. Is it the highest
performance glider? NO! Then why do like it so much.
Because it is such a pleasure to fly, light, precise and
with no bad habits. I can totally cross the
controls and it kinda says to me why are you doing that
I am going to partially ignore you. The DG goes into a
very fast and aggressive spin when I do that.
Unless it is important to you to break records, get badges
and be super serious about competitions almost any glider
that does not have bad habits can be most enjoyable.
Remember it is the gray matter that counts so much
more than the machine. I get much pleasure releasing at
1000 feet agl while the motor heads go to 3500 feet agl
to switch off their motors and on most days I keep up
with them with the SparrowHawk. Good luck in your
selection.
Dave

[Shawn[_5_]]

Doug Hoffman wrote:


> Hypothetical situation (in time maybe not so hypothetical): In the
> future we have 400 pound empty motorless 18 meter gliders with 80:1
> glide and thermaling characteristics superior to a 1-26. Someone has a
> restored a Schweizer 2-22. The 2-22 and the 18 meter take off for some
> x-country flying here in Michigan on a typical weak day with 1-2 knot
> thermals spread far apart with 3,000' AGL being the highest one can go.
> I'd put my money on the likelihood of the 18 meter not landing out
> compared to the 2-22. Landing out being defined here as landing in a
> field not an airport. Here we have a *lot* of little airports/airstrips
> peppered all over the place. If you get in trouble it is going to be
> easy to get to an airstrip in the 18 meter. Call for an aero retrieve
> and you land back at your home strip in 20 minutes. The 2-22 has a
> decidedly less desirable ordeal having landed in a farmer's field (fetch
> the trailer, disassemble in the field, etc.).

You're almost comparing two different sports though. That 18m uber-ship
will set the owner/s back $100,000+(+++ with the current dollar).
Restoration of a nearly free 2-22 might set that owner back
$5000-$10,000 plus sweat.
That said, I agree with Derek Piggot's quote about "*all else being
equal*, buy the most L/D you can afford". But that "all else being
equal" is a stupendously huge caveat. If what is most important to
*you* is tucking your ship into postage stamp sized fields, or climbing
in very weak thermals, it will dictate the performance to a great extent.

Shawn

[Eric Greenwell]

Doug Hoffman wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Doug Hoffman wrote:
>
>>> Was it Derek Piggot that said "Buy all the performance you can afford
>>> (all things being equal). Higher performance will lessen the chance
>>> for landout during x-country."?
>>
>> Landing out is a pilot choice, not an equipment attribute. The pilot
>> decides how important it is to return home, or if he prefers to land
>> at an airport instead of in a field, and flies accordingly. With 50:1,
>> he'll fly farther than with 25:1, but at the same risk of landing out.
>
> So you don't recall if Derek said that (or something very similar) either?

No, I don't. I do suspect whoever said it, the context was "for a given
length task"; i.e., the pilot has made the choice to accept a high(er)
landout risk to complete the task.

>
>> I know many pilots in high performance gliders that don't land out,
>> but a lot of them are simply not pushing themselves or their glider
>> very hard. These pilots generally enjoy this more relaxed soaring, but
>> it's their choice not to land out, not something the equipment prevents.
>
> Hypothetical situation (in time maybe not so hypothetical): In the
> future we have 400 pound empty motorless 18 meter gliders with 80:1
> glide and thermaling characteristics superior to a 1-26. Someone has a
> restored a Schweizer 2-22. The 2-22 and the 18 meter take off for some
> x-country flying here in Michigan on a typical weak day with 1-2 knot
> thermals spread far apart with 3,000' AGL being the highest one can go.
> I'd put my money on the likelihood of the 18 meter not landing out
> compared to the 2-22. Landing out being defined here as landing in a
> field not an airport. Here we have a *lot* of little airports/airstrips
> peppered all over the place. If you get in trouble it is going to be
> easy to get to an airstrip in the 18 meter. Call for an aero retrieve
> and you land back at your home strip in 20 minutes. The 2-22 has a
> decidedly less desirable ordeal having landed in a farmer's field (fetch
> the trailer, disassemble in the field, etc.).

Everything you say is true, but it wasn't the equipment that caused the
2-22 to landout. The pilot made the CHOICE to accept a landout when he
flew out of range of an airport. The 2-22 did not surprise him by
suddenly becoming a 10:1 glider instead of 20:1. If avoiding a landout
was his priority, he would've stayed closer to an airport, and have that
towplane come get him, too.

Flown to it's potential, the 18 meter glider is also likely to land out
ocasionally, or at least so far away an aerotow retrieve would not be
practical, because it would be dark before they got back to the home
airport.

This happens because a high performance glider allows you to cover such
large distances, you can not see (nor always predict) the weather you
will be flying in two or three hours later. So, you get out there, say
150 miles, and discover the soaring is dying behind you (seabreeze,
thunderstorms, cirrus, etc - pick your poison). A 2-22, on the other
hand, can see all the weather it's going to use, simply because it
doesn't go very far.

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

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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

[Eric Greenwell]

Doug Hoffman wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> I now fly a 50:1 glider, and "land-out" even more often, because I
>> push harder now. By "land-out", I mean I start the motor to avoid
>> actually putting the wheel in the dirt. It's great - aggressive
>> flying, and still home for beer and pizza!
>
> Yes, that would be great. But in 2008 the vast majority of us have to
> deal with "real" land outs. Not knocking self-rescuing gliders, but I
> am *far* more impressed by someone who flies a long distance on a weak
> day in a motorless than someone who flies the same with a motor, all
> other things being equal.

I am also more impressed in that situation; however, if the pilots are
similar, the pilot of the powered glider will have flown *farther*,
perhaps much farther, than the other pilot. Now, it's harder for me to
know which impresses the most.

> The psychological experience (adrenaline
> factor?) for the pilot in the motorless is a whole 'nuther thing
> compared to the self-rescuing. Yes, I know that sometimes the motors
> fail to start. My contention remains. Especially as motor
> technology/reliability improves, which it has/is.

I flew 3000 hours in motorless gliders, and now 2500 in powered gliders,
and for me, the "psychological experience (adrenaline > factor?)" is
*better* in the powered glider. Imagine you met a pilot with a Super Cub
and towhook that was looking for any excuse to fly. He offers to
retrieve you from any airport, or even a decent farm field, any day, any
time, and you just buy the gas! Would you tell him to go bother somebody
else because you didn't want to give up your "psychological experience
(adrenaline > factor?)"? Think about it - that's what it's like to have
a powered glider.

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

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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

[Doug Hoffman[_2_]]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> I flew 3000 hours in motorless gliders, and now 2500 in powered gliders,
> and for me, the "psychological experience (adrenaline > factor?)" is
> *better* in the powered glider. Imagine you met a pilot with a Super Cub
> and towhook that was looking for any excuse to fly. He offers to
> retrieve you from any airport, or even a decent farm field, any day, any
> time, and you just buy the gas! Would you tell him to go bother somebody
> else because you didn't want to give up your "psychological experience
> (adrenaline > factor?)"? Think about it - that's what it's like to have
> a powered glider.

Sorry. I didn't communicate well. I would *love* to have a motor in my
glider and would do it in a heartbeat for all the reasons you mention.
Problem is I can't afford one. Well, actually I could afford one. I
just couldn't afford to then also buy a new house to appease my better
half. ;-)

Regards,

-Doug

[Eric Greenwell]

Doug Hoffman wrote:
>
> Sorry. I didn't communicate well. I would *love* to have a motor in my
> glider and would do it in a heartbeat for all the reasons you mention.
> Problem is I can't afford one. Well, actually I could afford one. I
> just couldn't afford to then also buy a new house to appease my better
> half. ;-)

I'm sure she's a sensible person that can be reasoned with. Tell her the
motorglider is for *her* comfort and security:

* you will arrive home when promised - no more retrieves
* you will no longer complain about the long lines waiting for the
towplane, or whimper when the towplane is out of service
* And best of all, if (god forbid) you should be hit by a bus or other
large public transportation, she will not be destitute: she can sell the
motorglider for lot more than a plain glider, and live comfortably,
while the other wives she knows will wish their husbands were so
financially savvy and thoughtful.

Worked for me; at least, the first two were persuasive enough.

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

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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

[rlovinggood]

Eric,

Is your wife a bus driver?


Ray Lovinggood
Bus Rider

[Eric Greenwell]

rlovinggood wrote:
> Eric,
>
> Is your wife a bus driver?

Not a good plan if she is, eh? She will drive the motorhome and trailer,
as long as the trailer is empty!

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

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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

[[email protected]]

im late to the game but what the heck, homework has kept me busy the
last few days.

i bought the best glider i could with the money i had. I choose to
fly maximum distance. I have luckily had no problems finding crews
the last two seasons. I also really enjoy meeting the local farmers.
All of this plays very well into flying a low performance glider. and
by golly its FUN!!

[Tuno]

I haven't read all the answers to your original post, but mine depends
an awful lot on what you mean by "avg pilot".

If you fly with folk who are in better performing ships (forget
vintage), buy what you can afford to keep up with them, for they, not
your glider, will teach you the most. If you're more the loner type,
the question becomes much more subjective, no doubt covered in gory
detail by previous replies.

My first glider was a Glasflugel 304CZ, and it was a great choice for
a first glider, but I had to sell it in less than two years and pony
up for something better, just to have a prayer of keeping up with los
compadres. (Note that a major performance factor is maximum wing
loading -- not just L/D! I was being left behind in strong conditions
by gliders that could fly much higher wing loadings than my CZ. But in
weak conditions, it did fine, if not better.) But if I lived elsewhere
or flew with less talented cohorts, the 304CZ might have remained an
excellent first ship.

Regardless -- have fun with the choice you make and fly her to the
very best of your ability!

~ted/2NO

[Ian]

On 8 Mar, 18:42, Dave Rolley > wrote:

> More than the performance, you'll get frustrated with difficulty
> handling a glider on the ground. Look for a glider with a trailer and
> support equipment that makes it reasonably easy to assemble and handle
> the glider. You'll appreciate it when you are disassembling in a field
> after dark. Been there, done that. As have almost everyone on this
> newsgroup.

Agreed. That's one of the reasons I like the Pirat. With one (strong)
person who knows what s/he's doing I can go from trailer to flight in
under fifteen minutes, and I have derigged - approaching snowstorm -
in five minutes flat.

Ian

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 01:12:53 -0800 (PST), Ian
> wrote:

>On 8 Mar, 16:18, wrote:
>> I have read many posts about how gliders like the PW5, L33, and other
>> similar performance gliders are not the greatest cross country gliders
>> and that for the same money you can get older higher performance
>> gliders. My question is, if you forget about dollars per L/D, do
>> these type of gliders have enough performance to not cause frustration
>> in the beginner cross country pilot? Another question is, would the
>> avg pilot be satisfied with these for a few years or would most really
>> get the itch to trade sooner?
>
>I think it's far too dependent on individual pilots, sites and areas.
>I, for example, have no plans to get rid of the 34:1 wooden glider in
>which I have been having fun for twelve (I think) years.
>
>There are certainly a lot of pilots out there who buy performance for
>their early cross country flying. They may be less frustrated
>pilots ... but are they very good pilots?
>
>Ian

what type of glider is it?
Stealth Pilot

[Ian]

On 10 Mar, 13:33, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 01:12:53 -0800 (PST), Ian

> >I think it's far too dependent on individual pilots, sites and areas.
> >I, for example, have no plans to get rid of the 34:1 wooden glider in
> >which I have been having fun for twelve (I think) years.

> what type of glider is it?

Pirat (SZD30A). 15m monocoque plywood with GRP nose. Three piece wing,
T-tail. H-u-g-e cockpit!

Ian

[Doug Hoffman[_2_]]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Doug Hoffman wrote:

>> So you don't recall if Derek said that (or something very similar)
>> either?

> No, I don't. I do suspect whoever said it, the context was "for a given
> length task"; i.e., the pilot has made the choice to accept a high(er)
> landout risk to complete the task.

Found it. Gliding Magazine, Dec '92/Jan '93, Some More Types For the
Logbook (context was an assessment of a LAK-12).

"I have always held that when considering buying a machine or joining a
syndicate, you should go for the best performance you can afford.
Particularly if you are not very skilled, a good gliding angle gives you
a far better chance of finding each thermal, and greatly increases your
chances of staying up in weak conditions."

Derek Piggott's words, not mine. Although I agree with him.


Clearly there are other factors to consider. Such as if your buddies
are in 1-26's, or PW-5's, or whatever, and you want to fly with them.

Regards,

-Doug

[JJ Sinclair]

On Mar 12, 3:36*pm, Doug Hoffman <no.spam> wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > Doug Hoffman wrote:
> >> So you don't recall if Derek said that (or something very similar)
> >> either?
> > No, I don't. I do suspect whoever said it, the context was "for a given
> > length task"; i.e., the pilot has made the choice to accept a high(er)
> > landout risk to complete the task.
>
> Found it. *Gliding Magazine, Dec '92/Jan '93, Some More Types For the
> Logbook (context was an assessment of a LAK-12).
>
> "I have always held that when considering buying a machine or joining a
> syndicate, you should go for the best performance you can afford.
> Particularly if you are not very skilled, a good gliding angle gives you
> a far better chance of finding each thermal, and greatly increases your
> chances of staying up in weak conditions."
>
> Derek Piggott's words, not mine. *Although I agree with him.
>
> Clearly there are other factors to consider. *Such as if your buddies
> are in 1-26's, or PW-5's, or whatever, and you want to fly with them.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Doug

The FNG needs all the help s/he can get. Buying a low performance ship
with crappy instruments makes the learning process just that much more
frustrating and lengthy. Buy all the performance you can
afford............the farmers will appreciate it, too!
JJ

[Eric Greenwell]

JJ Sinclair wrote:

>> Clearly there are other factors to consider. Such as if your buddies
>> are in 1-26's, or PW-5's, or whatever, and you want to fly with them.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Doug
>
> The FNG needs all the help s/he can get. Buying a low performance ship

What does "low performance" mean these days: 1-26, Ka-6, Std cirrus? I
see some posters referring to 40:1 gliders as "medium performance",
which are still "high performance" to me, so I suspect everybody is
using widely varying definitions of low, medium, and high.

> with crappy instruments makes the learning process just that much more
> frustrating and lengthy.

Don't put up with crappy instruments in ANY glider! A good vario and TE
probe are cheap.

> Buy all the performance you can
> afford............the farmers will appreciate it, too!

And if the pilot can afford a Nimbus 4, should they get it?

OK, I'm sure JJ didn't mean that literally, but "buy all you can afford"
recommendation has been seen several times in this thread as a top
priority, and I don't think that's good. I put the priorities for the
new cross-country pilot in this order:

*Safety: automatic control connections; protective cockpit (ASW 24 or
better); docile, "no surprises" handling; powerful glide path control;
slow landing speed.

*Friendly on the ground: quick, easy rigging; small and light enough to
push around easily on the ramp.

*Performance to match your desires and wallet - your choice: keep up
with your buddies; "good enough" for the area (Nevada and Kansas pilots
will generally make different choices!); personal challenge (think Henry
Combs flying 200 diamond distances in a Libelle, or Jim Hard striking
out in 2-22's and 1-26s); contest aspirations; (fill in the blank).

As others have pointed out, once you've flown your choice for a couple
years, there is a good chance you'll realize your desires and abilities
aren't what they were originally. For this reason, I suggest buying
something you can easily afford, and trading up later on when you have a
better idea of your cross-country interests.

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

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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

[toad]

On Mar 13, 2:08 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
....
> What does "low performance" mean these days: 1-26, Ka-6, Std cirrus? I
> see some posters referring to 40:1 gliders as "medium performance",
> which are still "high performance" to me, so I suspect everybody is
> using widely varying definitions of low, medium, and high.

Low: 1-26, Ka-6, Pw-5, L33, etc

Mid: Grob 102, Std Cirrus, 1-34, similar, ASW-19, Libelle

High: ASW-20, ASW-24, Discus, or better

> OK, I'm sure JJ didn't mean that literally, but "buy all you can afford"
> recommendation has been seen several times in this thread as a top
> priority, and I don't think that's good.

Ok, how about buy the most you can easily afford that doesn't have any
bad qualities in the safety or convenience areas.

Todd Smith
3S

[Eric Greenwell]

toad wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2:08 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> ...
>> What does "low performance" mean these days: 1-26, Ka-6, Std cirrus? I
>> see some posters referring to 40:1 gliders as "medium performance",
>> which are still "high performance" to me, so I suspect everybody is
>> using widely varying definitions of low, medium, and high.
>
> Low: 1-26, Ka-6, Pw-5, L33, etc

OK, just as I thought. I don't put the Ka-6, Pw-5, L33, in the low
performance category, but "medium". So, maybe low, medium, high aren't
useful categories without defining them.
>
> Mid: Grob 102, Std Cirrus, 1-34, similar, ASW-19, Libelle
>
> High: ASW-20, ASW-24, Discus, or better
>
>> OK, I'm sure JJ didn't mean that literally, but "buy all you can afford"
>> recommendation has been seen several times in this thread as a top
>> priority, and I don't think that's good.
>
> Ok, how about buy the most you can easily afford that doesn't have any
> bad qualities in the safety or convenience areas.

What I think I said, mostly, but without the specifics; however, I think
the specifics are important. "Bad qualities" has many definitions; e.g.,
there are pilots that think the Std Cirrus would meet your criteria,
while I think it definitely does not.

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

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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

[toad]

On Mar 13, 3:27 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> toad wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 2:08 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> > ...
> >> What does "low performance" mean these days: 1-26, Ka-6, Std cirrus? I
> >> see some posters referring to 40:1 gliders as "medium performance",
> >> which are still "high performance" to me, so I suspect everybody is
> >> using widely varying definitions of low, medium, and high.
>
> > Low: 1-26, Ka-6, Pw-5, L33, etc
>
> OK, just as I thought. I don't put the Ka-6, Pw-5, L33, in the low
> performance category, but "medium". So, maybe low, medium, high aren't
> useful categories without defining them.

How can we argue senselessly on the internet if we don't have vague,
undefined terms :-)

In my experience, those models don't seem to do much on marginal days
in the Northeast US, so I lump them in the "low" category. Conditions
in your area might cause a different split in glider types.

>
>
> > Mid: Grob 102, Std Cirrus, 1-34, similar, ASW-19, Libelle
>
> > High: ASW-20, ASW-24, Discus, or better
>
> >> OK, I'm sure JJ didn't mean that literally, but "buy all you can afford"
> >> recommendation has been seen several times in this thread as a top
> >> priority, and I don't think that's good.
>
> > Ok, how about buy the most you can easily afford that doesn't have any
> > bad qualities in the safety or convenience areas.
>
> What I think I said, mostly, but without the specifics; however, I think
> the specifics are important. "Bad qualities" has many definitions; e.g.,
> there are pilots that think the Std Cirrus would meet your criteria,
> while I think it definitely does not.

That's definitely a para-phrase of what you said. And of course the
devil is in the details and many pilots will disagree on specifics.

Discussions of each glider type and individual aircraft can and will
take up a lot of hot air around glider clubs, as each pilot has their
own opinion on what makes those "bad qualities".

Todd Smith
3S

[[email protected]]

On Mar 13, 2:27*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> toad wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 2:08 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> > ...
> >> What does "low performance" mean these days: 1-26, Ka-6, Std cirrus? I
> >> see some posters referring to 40:1 gliders as "medium performance",
> >> which are still "high performance" to me, so I suspect everybody is
> >> using widely varying definitions of low, medium, and high.
>
> > Low: *1-26, Ka-6, Pw-5, L33, etc
>
> OK, just as I thought. I don't put the Ka-6, Pw-5, L33, in the low
> performance category, but "medium". So, maybe low, medium, high aren't
> useful categories without defining them.
>
>
>
> > Mid: *Grob 102, Std Cirrus, 1-34, similar, ASW-19, Libelle
>
> > High: ASW-20, ASW-24, Discus, or better
>
> >> OK, I'm sure JJ didn't mean that literally, but "buy all you can afford"
> >> recommendation has been seen several times in this thread as a top
> >> priority, and I don't think that's good.
>
> > Ok, how about buy the most you can easily afford that doesn't have any
> > bad qualities in the safety or convenience areas.
>
> What I think I said, mostly, but without the specifics; however, I think
> the specifics are important. "Bad qualities" has many definitions; e.g.,
> there are pilots that think the Std Cirrus would meet your criteria,
> while I think it definitely does not.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> * Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes"http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * * * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org

Why don't you define performance in terms of LD ranges. Then it would
apply to any ship, not just the ones named.

<30 = Low, 30-40 = Medium, >40 = High (these numbers are just my
examples)

[vontresc]

On Mar 13, 3:46*pm, wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2:27*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > toad wrote:
> > > On Mar 13, 2:08 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> > > ...
> > >> What does "low performance" mean these days: 1-26, Ka-6, Std cirrus? I
> > >> see some posters referring to 40:1 gliders as "medium performance",
> > >> which are still "high performance" to me, so I suspect everybody is
> > >> using widely varying definitions of low, medium, and high.
>
> > > Low: *1-26, Ka-6, Pw-5, L33, etc
>
> > OK, just as I thought. I don't put the Ka-6, Pw-5, L33, in the low
> > performance category, but "medium". So, maybe low, medium, high aren't
> > useful categories without defining them.
>
> > > Mid: *Grob 102, Std Cirrus, 1-34, similar, ASW-19, Libelle
>
> > > High: ASW-20, ASW-24, Discus, or better
>
> > >> OK, I'm sure JJ didn't mean that literally, but "buy all you can afford"
> > >> recommendation has been seen several times in this thread as a top
> > >> priority, and I don't think that's good.
>
> > > Ok, how about buy the most you can easily afford that doesn't have any
> > > bad qualities in the safety or convenience areas.
>
> > What I think I said, mostly, but without the specifics; however, I think
> > the specifics are important. "Bad qualities" has many definitions; e.g.,
> > there are pilots that think the Std Cirrus would meet your criteria,
> > while I think it definitely does not.
>
> > --
> > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> > * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> > * Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes"http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> > * * * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>
> > * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org
>
> Why don't you define performance in terms of LD ranges. Then it would
> apply to any ship, not just the ones named.
>
> <30 = Low, *30-40 = Medium, >40 = High * (these numbers are just my
> examples)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well as a soon to be owner of a Ka-6 I will have to report my
experiences as the aforementioned FNG later this season :-).

The price was right, it comes with a descent trailer, and from all I
have read it is rather nice flying ship. I don't expect to be able to
fly a diamond distance in it on a weak day, but I do fully intend to
start exploring away from the field. I also expect to be landing out,
although this is somewhat easier in WI than it would be in the rocky
mountains.

I know it isn't a 40:1 ship, but it's gonna be way better than a
2-33 :-)

Pete

[[email protected]]

On Mar 13, 3:56*pm, vontresc > wrote:
> On Mar 13, 3:46*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 13, 2:27*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
> > > toad wrote:
> > > > On Mar 13, 2:08 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > >> What does "low performance" mean these days: 1-26, Ka-6, Std cirrus? I
> > > >> see some posters referring to 40:1 gliders as "medium performance",
> > > >> which are still "high performance" to me, so I suspect everybody is
> > > >> using widely varying definitions of low, medium, and high.
>
> > > > Low: *1-26, Ka-6, Pw-5, L33, etc
>
> > > OK, just as I thought. I don't put the Ka-6, Pw-5, L33, in the low
> > > performance category, but "medium". So, maybe low, medium, high aren't
> > > useful categories without defining them.
>
> > > > Mid: *Grob 102, Std Cirrus, 1-34, similar, ASW-19, Libelle
>
> > > > High: ASW-20, ASW-24, Discus, or better
>
> > > >> OK, I'm sure JJ didn't mean that literally, but "buy all you can afford"
> > > >> recommendation has been seen several times in this thread as a top
> > > >> priority, and I don't think that's good.
>
> > > > Ok, how about buy the most you can easily afford that doesn't have any
> > > > bad qualities in the safety or convenience areas.
>
> > > What I think I said, mostly, but without the specifics; however, I think
> > > the specifics are important. "Bad qualities" has many definitions; e.g..,
> > > there are pilots that think the Std Cirrus would meet your criteria,
> > > while I think it definitely does not.
>
> > > --
> > > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> > > * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> > > * Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes"http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> > > * * * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>
> > > * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org
>
> > Why don't you define performance in terms of LD ranges. Then it would
> > apply to any ship, not just the ones named.
>
> > <30 = Low, *30-40 = Medium, >40 = High * (these numbers are just my
> > examples)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well as a soon to be owner of a Ka-6 I will have to report my
> experiences as the aforementioned FNG later this season :-).
>
> The price was right, it comes with a descent trailer, and from all I
> have read it is rather nice flying ship. I don't expect to be able to
> fly a diamond distance in it on a weak day, but I do fully intend to
> start exploring away from the field. I also expect to be landing out,
> although this is somewhat easier in WI than it would be in the rocky
> mountains.
>
> I know it isn't a 40:1 ship, but it's gonna be way better than a
> 2-33 :-)
>
> Pete- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Pete,

Congrats. I'm looking forward to seeing it at the field. Should be
fun!


Dave

[toad]

> Well as a soon to be owner of a Ka-6 I will have to report my
> experiences as the aforementioned FNG later this season :-).
>
> The price was right, it comes with a descent trailer, and from all I
> have read it is rather nice flying ship. I don't expect to be able to
> fly a diamond distance in it on a weak day, but I do fully intend to
> start exploring away from the field. I also expect to be landing out,
> although this is somewhat easier in WI than it would be in the rocky
> mountains.
>
> I know it isn't a 40:1 ship, but it's gonna be way better than a
> 2-33 :-)
>
> Pete

The K6, K8 or 1-26 all seem like fun gliders to fly, and the price is
right.
The other "low" performance gliders just seem a little over priced.

Anyway, welcome to the club (of owners) and have fun with it.

Todd

[Eric Greenwell]

vontresc wrote:

> Well as a soon to be owner of a Ka-6 I will have to report my
> experiences as the aforementioned FNG later this season :-).
>
> The price was right, it comes with a descent trailer, and from all I
> have read it is rather nice flying ship. I don't expect to be able to
> fly a diamond distance in it on a weak day, but I do fully intend to
> start exploring away from the field. I also expect to be landing out,
> although this is somewhat easier in WI than it would be in the rocky
> mountains.

A Ka-6e was the first glider I owned, and it is lovely glider to fly. I
completed Diamond distance on a day 20 other gliders didn't (contest
task) because I could stay up in the very weak weather at the end of the
day, unlike the the 15 or so glass gliders that landed at the airport
about 15 miles out from the finish. I think you'll find it well suited
to WI.

It's also very easy to land safely in a field, because the airbrakes are
powerful, it lands slowly, and stops quickly. Carrying the root of the
wing out isn't as much fun, but the tip is light, and so is the fuselage.


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

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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

[Doug Hoffman]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Doug Hoffman wrote:

> > So you don't recall if Derek said that (or something very
> > similar) either?

> No, I don't. I do suspect whoever said it, the context was
> "for a given
> length task"; i.e., the pilot has made the choice to accept a
> high(er)
> landout risk to complete the task.

Found it. Gliding Magazine, Dec ‘92/Jan ’93,
Some More Types For the Logbook (context was an assessment of a
LAK-12).

“I have always held that when considering buying a machine or
joining a syndicate,
you should go for the best performance you can afford.
Particularly if you are
not very skilled, a good gliding angle gives you a far better
chance of
finding each thermal, and greatly increases your chances of
staying up in weak conditions.”

Derek Piggott’s words, not mine. Though I agree with him.

Clearly there could be overriding factors such as if you want
to fly with all of your buddies who are in 1-26’s, or PW-5’s, or
whatever.

--
Regards,
Doug\0

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Doug Hoffman]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Doug Hoffman wrote:

> > So you don't recall if Derek said that (or something very
> > similar) either?
>
> No, I don't. I do suspect whoever said it, the context was
> "for a given
> length task"; i.e., the pilot has made the choice to accept a
> high(er)
> landout risk to complete the task.


Found it. Gliding Magazine, Dec ‘92/Jan ’93,
Some More Types For the Logbook (context was an assessment of a
LAK-12).

Begin Quote
I have always held that when considering buying a machine or
joining a syndicate,
you should go for the best performance you can afford.
Particularly if you are
not very skilled, a good gliding angle gives you a far better
chance of
finding each thermal, and greatly increases your chances of
staying up in weak conditions.
End Quote

Derek Piggott’s words, not mine. Though I agree with him.

Clearly there could be overriding factors such as if you want
to fly with your buddies who are all in 1-26’s, or PW-5’s, or
whatever.

--
Regards,
Doug


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Cats]

On Mar 13, 8:46*pm, wrote:
<snip>
>
> Why don't you define performance in terms of LD ranges. Then it would
> apply to any ship, not just the ones named.
>
> <30 = Low, *30-40 = Medium, >40 = High * (these numbers are just my
> examples)

How flat or otherwise the polar is also comes into it. The difficulty
flying a lot of low-performance gliders is that penetrating into wind
is nigh on impossible on many days.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 14, 3:02*am, Cats > wrote:
> On Mar 13, 8:46*pm, wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > Why don't you define performance in terms of LD ranges. Then it would
> > apply to any ship, not just the ones named.
>
> > <30 = Low, *30-40 = Medium, >40 = High * (these numbers are just my
> > examples)
>
> How flat or otherwise the polar is also comes into it. *The difficulty
> flying a lot of low-performance gliders is that penetrating into wind
> is nigh on impossible on many days.

Then it makes sense that they would be considered "low performance",
no?

Maybe it could be defined as L/D at a given minimum speed? I guess it
depends on if we're talking about basic performance, or cross-country
performance.

[HL Falbaum]

"Cats" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 13, 8:46 pm, wrote:
<snip>
>
> Why don't you define performance in terms of LD ranges. Then it would
> apply to any ship, not just the ones named.
>
> <30 = Low, 30-40 = Medium, >40 = High (these numbers are just my
> examples)

How flat or otherwise the polar is also comes into it. The difficulty
flying a lot of low-performance gliders is that penetrating into wind
is nigh on impossible on many days.


Weeellll--maybe!
Day 1, Region 5 North, Perry--17 Apr 2006.

Terribly windy day (20 kt IIRC)---Start cylinder 5 mi radius, and start
point 5 mi upwind from airport, so you must make 10 mi into the wind just to
start. Blue, again IIRC.

I am flying a DG800B with water and 18m tips. Dave Stevenson is flying a K6.
We were in the same thermal for a while, prestart. I am far from talented as
a comps pilot. I lost sight of him in a short while.

Bottom line--Dave wins the day, and I can't even make it through the start
gate. The landout rate for all classes is well over 50%. The whole
point---talent and skill and experience is a winning combo. Skill and
experience is gained by flying, often, and in all sorts of conditions. So
get what you can afford to fly, and fly it a lot!

Hartley Falbaum
USA "KF"

[[email protected]]

the low performance glider wont penetrate in to the wind?

Dont fly into the wind! thats what i do and its FUN!

[Cats]

On Mar 16, 3:42*am, wrote:
> the low performance glider wont penetrate in to the wind?
>
> Dont fly into the wind! *thats what i do and its FUN!

A bit tricky when going downwind has miles of open sea for a landout...