Comparison of older Open Class gliders

[SoaringXCellence]

All,

There are at least one of each of the following gliders for sale
currently:
Jantar 2
Nimbus 2
ASW-17
At about the same cost for each, after delivery.

The online sailplane directory places all of them very close in
performance.

I'm interested in the comparison of these three ships (and only these
three ships!) by individuals that have actually flown them or at least
one of them, for handling, comfort, idiosyncrasies, and any other
details you feel are pertainent.

Thank you.

[Dan G]

On Mar 15, 4:09*am, SoaringXCellence > wrote:
> All,
>
> There are at least one of each of the following gliders for sale
> currently:
> Jantar 2
> Nimbus 2
> ASW-17
> At about the same cost for each, after delivery.
>
> The online sailplane directory places all of them very close in
> performance.
>
> I'm interested in the comparison of these three ships (and only these
> three ships!) by individuals that have actually flown them or at least
> one of them, for handling, comfort, idiosyncrasies, and any other
> details you feel are pertainent.
>
> Thank you.

Not flown them, but have read S&Gs from the 1970s when they were the
"hot ships" (and the English/German Kestrel 19 was also right up
there). The Nimbus 2 seemed to be the top dog in competitions, though
the ASW17 occasionally had moments of greatness, particularly in the
hands of British pilots.

Dick Johnson was keen on the Jantar 2, but I think that even in those
days "German=best" was setting in, apart from a few folk who liked
thinking outside the box (e.g. Dick).


Dan

[Ian[_2_]]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:09:36 -0700, SoaringXCellence wrote:

> There are at least one of each of the following gliders for sale
> currently:
> Jantar 2
> Nimbus 2
> ASW-17
> At about the same cost for each, after delivery.

> I'm interested in the comparison of these three ships (and only these
> three ships!) by individuals that have actually flown them or at least
> one of them, for handling, comfort, idiosyncrasies, and any other
> details you feel are pertainent.

I owned a share in a Nimbus 2 and flew many hundreds of hours in it,
including competitions, an FAI 750km triangle and a 1000km Diploma. As
they say "TINFOS". I have flown with ASW17's and helped derig them.

The Nimbus inner wing section is lighter than the heaviest wing section
of the other two you list. This is particularly significant if you land
out in a soft plowed field. You need four strong fit men to carry the
Nimbus out of a field but it is doable and if you done it you wont be too
scared to get into that situation again. This is important. There is no
point in flying open class unless you intend to use the performance for
what it is intended for! With the others you will need even more or
stronger man power and once experienced it might put the brakes on future
cross country aspirations.

Performance wise, the Nimbus has a lower wing loading than the 17 when
flying empty, which gave it an advantage in weak weather. It was
particularly good at sneaking back home after everything else had landed.
The 17's might have gone a bit better in strong weather - maybe because
they managed to load them up heavier. (But it was quick to full the
Nimbus tanks and I regularly carried water.)

Whatever you chose, you have to be committed to fly open class.
Everything takes more time and effort. Rigging, cleaning, pushing,
polishing even towing. There is a learning curve required to, but when
you get on top of it you will fly a lot further and a little faster than
the 15m pilots.

(Now days I fly an LS3a, it handles beautifully, it climbs, runs, can be
landed in a tiny field and it is easy to de-rig and tow home afterwards.
It is really nice on our ridges. All very different to an open class
glider - but I do a lot less cross country millage now than I did in the
Nimbus.)

Have Fun


Ian

[Bill Daniels]

I would add that the wings of my N2C are carbon and thus much lighter than
the earlier versions and MUCH lighter than the other two glider listed. The
inner wing panels are light enough that I can actually lift one myself if I
grip it at the spanwise CG. The weight of the parts isn't the difficulty,
it's just the number of them. My assembly "to-do" list has 55 items and
takes about 45 minutes if I'm in a hurry.

Once you have it together, it's a beaut to fly. Dry, it's a little over 6
Lbs wing loading and will soar in weakest conditions and land VERY slowly.
Ballast up to the limit (over 10Lbs/sq ft) and runs like a cruise missile.
The N2C could be improved considerably with a few modifications. First on
my list would be a tail tank since the wing ballast tanks are well ahead of
the desired CG followed by winglets and root fillets.

Bill Daniels

"Ian" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:09:36 -0700, SoaringXCellence wrote:
>
>> There are at least one of each of the following gliders for sale
>> currently:
>> Jantar 2
>> Nimbus 2
>> ASW-17
>> At about the same cost for each, after delivery.
>
>> I'm interested in the comparison of these three ships (and only these
>> three ships!) by individuals that have actually flown them or at least
>> one of them, for handling, comfort, idiosyncrasies, and any other
>> details you feel are pertainent.
>
> I owned a share in a Nimbus 2 and flew many hundreds of hours in it,
> including competitions, an FAI 750km triangle and a 1000km Diploma. As
> they say "TINFOS". I have flown with ASW17's and helped derig them.
>
> The Nimbus inner wing section is lighter than the heaviest wing section
> of the other two you list. This is particularly significant if you land
> out in a soft plowed field. You need four strong fit men to carry the
> Nimbus out of a field but it is doable and if you done it you wont be too
> scared to get into that situation again. This is important. There is no
> point in flying open class unless you intend to use the performance for
> what it is intended for! With the others you will need even more or
> stronger man power and once experienced it might put the brakes on future
> cross country aspirations.
>
> Performance wise, the Nimbus has a lower wing loading than the 17 when
> flying empty, which gave it an advantage in weak weather. It was
> particularly good at sneaking back home after everything else had landed.
> The 17's might have gone a bit better in strong weather - maybe because
> they managed to load them up heavier. (But it was quick to full the
> Nimbus tanks and I regularly carried water.)
>
> Whatever you chose, you have to be committed to fly open class.
> Everything takes more time and effort. Rigging, cleaning, pushing,
> polishing even towing. There is a learning curve required to, but when
> you get on top of it you will fly a lot further and a little faster than
> the 15m pilots.
>
> (Now days I fly an LS3a, it handles beautifully, it climbs, runs, can be
> landed in a tiny field and it is easy to de-rig and tow home afterwards.
> It is really nice on our ridges. All very different to an open class
> glider - but I do a lot less cross country millage now than I did in the
> Nimbus.)
>
> Have Fun
>
>
> Ian

[Mike the Strike]

I owned a Jantar-1 - the earlier 19 meter version of the Jantar 2. I
had a lot of fun and did most of my badge flights in it. Its flight
characteristics and handling are benign, but it is under-ruddered with
a lot more adverse yaw than you'll see in the Nimbus. The canopy is a
two-piece with the rear section removable, but there is a hinged
retrofit.

Fit and finish are not as good as the German gliders, but it is tough
and very well-built. Mine had gel-coat issues and the wings had to be
refinished (in polyurethane).

The main downsides are rigging and ground-handling. My Jantar-1 had
single and very heavy wing panels, so appearance of my trailer on the
field would result in the scene quickly emptying! A one-man rigging
aid would be very helpful and if you have a hangar, I wouldn't worry.

Price/performance is very good.

Mike

[JS]

Flown all three, two versions of N2, both spans of 17 but not the DB
mod.
The Nimbus 2C and AS-W17 (ours was a B, but I bet they'll both
handle like a 20) are easier to handle than the Open Jantar 2. With
the older Nimbus 2s, you should make sure you're well forward CG on
early flights. My first launch was "interesting", second flight was
great... with 50 pounds of lead in the seat! The C or N3 with a fixed
horizontal stab, the CG thing isn't as bad. Have flown Nimbus 3 at
109% aft, still easy to fly.
The N2 is the only one with a civilized canopy as a factory install.
The 17 and Jantar were made with removable canopies.
If it's a 17B, descents with full (dual surface) spoilers and the
drag chute are cool. And if you have the home brew tips it can be
flown at 15m span with super high wing loading! What a racer! I regret
never doing a 15m drag chute landing.
The 15 and 17 have balsa spars and the 15 had a Tech Note on mold.
We checked our 17 for mold and found none. It felt awful to drill
holes in the spar, but reassuring afterwards.
Any of these gliders are much easier to rig with a solo rigging
tool. Several Jantars in the USA have Minden Fab trailers with their
rigging kit.
Jim