Expanded Glider Budget - Choices?

[noel.wade]

Hi All,

Back at the beginning of the year, I anticipated being able to upgrade
my glider. I bought my Russia AC-4a in 2007 on a very limited budget
and have thoroughly enjoyed its sprightly handling, easy rigging, and
climb capability. However, a big jump in my position at work has
given the the means to afford a better glider. Since my job also
means I may fly less often, I want a ship that I can stretch out with
more on longer glides (here in Seattle we get a lot of days with
3,000' - 4,000' cloudbases and only 2 - 3 knots of lift. I'm thinking
that 38:1 *measured* is the minimal L/D I'll be interested in).

Initially I was thinking I'd have a $25k - $30k limit and probably try
something with flaps (a la LS-3, Mini-Nimbus, Mosquito, DG-200, etc).
There was a long thread here where people provided some great advice.

Recently its begun looking like I may actually be able to afford a
$35k - $40k glider. This price-range opens up a few new doors
(ASW-20, perhaps a DG-202 or maybe DG-300, LS-4 mayyyybe, Pegasus, or
others?)... I was wondering if folks would be willing to tell me
their pick, and state why.

Priorities: I am interested in good ergonomics (the Apises and
DG-300's at our airfield make me envious), good/responsive handling,
good performance in weak weather, good visibility (one piece canopy),
and easy rigging (automatic hookups preferred - for safety as well as
rigging convenience).

Obviously PU or good Gel-Coat and a good trailer are important; but
what I'm after here are the inherent traits of the glider model you
suggest.

Thanks a bunch in advance!

--Noel

[Sarah Anderson[_2_]]

Congratulations on your good fortune and opportunity to try a new glider.

To start off the chorus of "the best glider is the one I fly", add the LS-6 to your maybe list.
They're harder to find in the US that the '20s, but you may be lucky. The '6 hasn't the
interesting flaps-down stall the '20 is known for, and handles wonderfully slow or fast with
those full-span flaperons. It is easy to land, less easy on take-off ( cg hook and long ground roll.)
It is relatively easy to rig, though a wing-rigging aid may be helpful. The wings are not light,
though I am comparing it to a Libelle which isn't fair. The downside may be it's interior room. If you're big & tall the LS6 may be as much of a
squeeze as the older Ventus-As.

Good luck!
Sarah

noel.wade wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Back at the beginning of the year, I anticipated being able to upgrade
> my glider. I bought my Russia AC-4a in 2007 on a very limited budget
> and have thoroughly enjoyed its sprightly handling, easy rigging, and
> climb capability. However, a big jump in my position at work has
> given the the means to afford a better glider. Since my job also
> means I may fly less often, I want a ship that I can stretch out with
> more on longer glides (here in Seattle we get a lot of days with
> 3,000' - 4,000' cloudbases and only 2 - 3 knots of lift. I'm thinking
> that 38:1 *measured* is the minimal L/D I'll be interested in).
>
> Initially I was thinking I'd have a $25k - $30k limit and probably try
> something with flaps (a la LS-3, Mini-Nimbus, Mosquito, DG-200, etc).
> There was a long thread here where people provided some great advice.
>
> Recently its begun looking like I may actually be able to afford a
> $35k - $40k glider. This price-range opens up a few new doors
> (ASW-20, perhaps a DG-202 or maybe DG-300, LS-4 mayyyybe, Pegasus, or
> others?)... I was wondering if folks would be willing to tell me
> their pick, and state why.
>
> Priorities: I am interested in good ergonomics (the Apises and
> DG-300's at our airfield make me envious), good/responsive handling,
> good performance in weak weather, good visibility (one piece canopy),
> and easy rigging (automatic hookups preferred - for safety as well as
> rigging convenience).
>
> Obviously PU or good Gel-Coat and a good trailer are important; but
> what I'm after here are the inherent traits of the glider model you
> suggest.
>
> Thanks a bunch in advance!
>
> --Noel

[rlovinggood]

Noel,

With your stated budget, my first and only stop would be at the local
ASW-20 store.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

[rlovinggood]

Noel,

With your stated budget, my first and only stop would be at the
nearest ASW-20 store.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

[Tim Taylor]

On Mar 27, 6:00 pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Back at the beginning of the year, I anticipated being able to upgrade
> my glider. I bought my Russia AC-4a in 2007 on a very limited budget
> and have thoroughly enjoyed its sprightly handling, easy rigging, and
> climb capability. However, a big jump in my position at work has
> given the the means to afford a better glider. Since my job also
> means I may fly less often, I want a ship that I can stretch out with
> more on longer glides (here in Seattle we get a lot of days with
> 3,000' - 4,000' cloudbases and only 2 - 3 knots of lift. I'm thinking
> that 38:1 *measured* is the minimal L/D I'll be interested in).
>
> Initially I was thinking I'd have a $25k - $30k limit and probably try
> something with flaps (a la LS-3, Mini-Nimbus, Mosquito, DG-200, etc).
> There was a long thread here where people provided some great advice.
>
> Recently its begun looking like I may actually be able to afford a
> $35k - $40k glider. This price-range opens up a few new doors
> (ASW-20, perhaps a DG-202 or maybe DG-300, LS-4 mayyyybe, Pegasus, or
> others?)... I was wondering if folks would be willing to tell me
> their pick, and state why.
>
> Priorities: I am interested in good ergonomics (the Apises and
> DG-300's at our airfield make me envious), good/responsive handling,
> good performance in weak weather, good visibility (one piece canopy),
> and easy rigging (automatic hookups preferred - for safety as well as
> rigging convenience).
>
> Obviously PU or good Gel-Coat and a good trailer are important; but
> what I'm after here are the inherent traits of the glider model you
> suggest.
>
> Thanks a bunch in advance!
>
> --Noel

Buy something about $32K and save the rest to upgrade the panel. Most
in that price range will not have a current panel with GPS-Logger-
Integrated Vario and computer.

You will not be able to tell much performance difference in anything
in this price range and vintage.

Tim

[Paul Cordell]

Noel


I am a big fan of the ASW-20. Great handling, very comfortable and
most importantly, the best landing features. As you head out on your
cross country adventures, eventually, you will have to face
outlanding. Flying a '20 will give you the confidence to accurately
place your sailplane in those small Western Washington random fields
you may have to use.

But Why do you suffer? For a couple additional hours, you can fly in
Eastern Washington. Beautiful High thermals marked by Cu and dust
devils. Landing fields that are full sections BIG. I'd be happy
to give you a Columbia Basin tour in the 2 seat Nimbus. All ya gotta
do is show up.

Paul Cordell (ex '20 driver)
Ephrata
Nimbus 3D

[noel.wade]

Thanks, Sarah! I didn't think an LS-6 would be within my budget...
If it is, cool! Although yes, I'm 6' 1" and 205 lbs. I can fit in a
Libelle, but its tight. Don't know about an early Ventus cockpit. :-
P
(Leg-room is the bigger issue for me)

Thanks!

--Noel

On Mar 27, 5:11*pm, Sarah Anderson > wrote:
> though I am comparing it to a Libelle which isn't fair. The downside may be it's interior room. *If you're big & tall the LS6 may be as much of a
> squeeze as the older Ventus-As.
>
> Good luck!
> Sarah

[noel.wade]

This is slightly off-topic - but the basic reasons are: time and
money. Gas prices and the cost of lodging/meals (even with the SGC
bunkhouse) eat into money that I could use for tows on the west-side
(or for taking ladies out on dates - but where are my priorities?
*chuckle*).

Also, I keep hearing "for only a couple of hours" - but I live in
Bothell and work in Bellevue. Once you factor in traffic, its at
least 3+ hours each way. If I was retired, I'd get a cheap motorhome
or pop-up camper and spend my spring and early summer in EPH without
question... But not when I am at work until 6 or 7pm on Friday, and
have to be back at work by 7 or 8am on Monday. :-P

Thanks,

--Noel
P.S. I really do appreciate the offer! Jim Simmons and Tom Udd have
both offered to show me around the area playing tag-along, too. I am
definitely planning on flying a couple of times a year over there;
just can't make it a weekly occurrance.

On Mar 27, 6:34*pm, Paul Cordell > wrote:
> But Why do you suffer? * For a couple additional hours, you can fly in
> Eastern Washington. * *Beautiful High thermals marked by Cu and dust

[Cats]

On Mar 28, 12:00*am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
<snip>
>
> Priorities: *I am interested in good ergonomics (the Apises and
> DG-300's at our airfield make me envious), good/responsive handling,
> good performance in weak weather, good visibility (one piece canopy),
> and easy rigging (automatic hookups preferred - for safety as well as
> rigging convenience).
>
> Obviously PU or good Gel-Coat and a good trailer are important; but
> what I'm after here are the inherent traits of the glider model you
> suggest.
>


Ergonomics depends so much on your individual shape and the only way
to find out is to sit in a glider. We have a Discus at our club and
lots of people fit it, but there are a number of people who for
various reasons don't.

Traits of the glider also depends on where you have the CoG - mine was
very difficult to round out when I started flying it, an adjustment to
move the CoG aft and it's a great improvement. I suspect that almost
any 15m glass glider can handle nicely if you get the CoG in the right
place. How critical that is depends on the type of glider - if the
elevator is relatively small then having it too far forwards can be a
nightmare getting it to round out.

Re the Pegase - seems to be loved or loathed, but there is a problem
(at present) about the maximum hours in the US.

I fly the glider I do as 1) I fit it, 2) it was what was available at
the time, 3) I could afford it (just) and 4) the CFI approved.

[JJ Sinclair]

Noel,
Most of the ships on your list will do quite nicely if tuned up
(contoured wings, proper CG, mylar, etc.). The questions I would be
asking are; How's the finish? What kind of shape is the trailer in?
What's in the instrument panel? Now days you want an airborne computer
driven by a GPS/flight recorder. If you buy a ship with questionable
gelcoat, you're looking at a minimum of 16K down the road to get it re-
finished. A "sagging" trailer with bad brakes will run you a bundle,
soon.

Now, it just so happens that old JJ will be offering a DG-300 that has
been completely re-finished in acrylic urethane with a good Cobra
trailer and the above mentioned good instruments. Available on/about
the first of May, 2008. E-mail me for particulars.
JJ Sinclair

[Shawn[_5_]]

noel.wade wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Back at the beginning of the year, I anticipated being able to upgrade
> my glider. I bought my Russia AC-4a in 2007 on a very limited budget
> and have thoroughly enjoyed its sprightly handling, easy rigging, and
> climb capability. However, a big jump in my position at work has
> given the the means to afford a better glider. Since my job also
> means I may fly less often, I want a ship that I can stretch out with
> more on longer glides (here in Seattle we get a lot of days with
> 3,000' - 4,000' cloudbases and only 2 - 3 knots of lift. I'm thinking
> that 38:1 *measured* is the minimal L/D I'll be interested in).
>
> Initially I was thinking I'd have a $25k - $30k limit and probably try
> something with flaps (a la LS-3, Mini-Nimbus, Mosquito, DG-200, etc).
> There was a long thread here where people provided some great advice.
>
> Recently its begun looking like I may actually be able to afford a
> $35k - $40k glider. This price-range opens up a few new doors
> (ASW-20, perhaps a DG-202 or maybe DG-300, LS-4 mayyyybe, Pegasus, or
> others?)... I was wondering if folks would be willing to tell me
> their pick, and state why.
>
> Priorities: I am interested in good ergonomics (the Apises and
> DG-300's at our airfield make me envious), good/responsive handling,
> good performance in weak weather, good visibility (one piece canopy),
> and easy rigging (automatic hookups preferred - for safety as well as
> rigging convenience).
>
> Obviously PU or good Gel-Coat and a good trailer are important; but
> what I'm after here are the inherent traits of the glider model you
> suggest.
>
> Thanks a bunch in advance!


Ventus b *used* to be in your price range, especially if the panel is dated.
Great landing characteristics, long gliding legs, light(er) all carbon
wings, easy rigging, and all auto control connections. Most people
describe the cockpit as roomy. At 5'7" I'm not a good judge though.

Shawn

[Ramy]

On Mar 27, 5:00*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Back at the beginning of the year, I anticipated being able to upgrade
> my glider. *I bought my Russia AC-4a in 2007 on a very limited budget
> and have thoroughly enjoyed its sprightly handling, easy rigging, and
> climb capability. *However, a big jump in my position at work has
> given the the means to afford a better glider. *Since my job also
> means I may fly less often, I want a ship that I can stretch out with
> more on longer glides (here in Seattle we get a lot of days with
> 3,000' - 4,000' cloudbases and only 2 - 3 knots of lift. *I'm thinking
> that 38:1 *measured* is the minimal L/D I'll be interested in).
>
> Initially I was thinking I'd have a $25k - $30k limit and probably try
> something with flaps (a la LS-3, Mini-Nimbus, Mosquito, DG-200, etc).
> There was a long thread here where people provided some great advice.
>
> Recently its begun looking like I may actually be able to afford a
> $35k - $40k glider. *This price-range opens up a few new doors
> (ASW-20, perhaps a DG-202 or maybe DG-300, LS-4 mayyyybe, Pegasus, or
> others?)... *I was wondering if folks would be willing to tell me
> their pick, and state why.
>
> Priorities: *I am interested in good ergonomics (the Apises and
> DG-300's at our airfield make me envious), good/responsive handling,
> good performance in weak weather, good visibility (one piece canopy),
> and easy rigging (automatic hookups preferred - for safety as well as
> rigging convenience).
>
> Obviously PU or good Gel-Coat and a good trailer are important; but
> what I'm after here are the inherent traits of the glider model you
> suggest.
>
> Thanks a bunch in advance!
>
> --Noel

Most of the gliders you mentioned in your higher price range ($35K-
$40K) are available in your previous price range ($25K-$30K), at least
in the US. Pegasus for even less.

Ramy

[noel.wade]

On Mar 28, 11:54 am, Ramy > wrote:
> > Most of the gliders you mentioned in your higher price range ($35K-
> $40K) are available in your previous price range ($25K-$30K), at least
> in the US. Pegasus for even less.
>
> Ramy

Ramy -

Even though metal and old glass ships have been losing value, prices
on 80's glass has been holding steady or going up. I blame it on the
Euro-Dollar disparity and the widening gap between the cost of used
vs. new gliders (encouraging more folks to stick with 80's and 90's
glass).

I know of 1 DG-300 in so-so condition that sold for just over $30k
recently. High-end DG-300's and 303's have been selling quite rapidly
at $50k - $60k. I don't know of ANY ASW-20's that have sold for under
$30k recently.

But having said that, your point is well taken. I have often debated
whether the minor performance differences between a Mosquito and an
ASW-20 / LS-6 / DG-300 are worth the extra cost (especially since I
fly in such weak conditions). Wouldn't I be better with an older ship
and use the "extra" money to improve it? The thing is, those older
ships leave more to be desired in terms of ergonomics, rigging, and
resale value. And I've decided that those traits ARE worth some
money. How much - well that's a matter of opinion...

--Noel

[Bruce]

Wings and wheels has a 19m Kestrel on it for a lot less than this.
Things against it.
Detachable canopy with that hoop in your field of view.
The weight of the wings - you really know who your friends are when you rig a
T59 Kestrel.
19m Wingspan makes for more ground handling effort and concentration than a 15m
ship.
Not competitive in any class - it is too much wing to be in 18m, and too little
to win in open.
Not exactly nimble.

Things going for it.
Delightful handling.
Looong legs - beats a Ventus on performance.
Landing flap gives very steep and slow approaches, nice and safe.
Big cockpit.
Very good value for money.

So - If what you want to do is fly XC - it might be an idea. Lots of performance
for little money means you can spend more on good instruments, and aerotow.

Just my 2c.

You will probably like whatever you buy - it is human nature. I would just
suggest that you keep a reserve of money available to invest in instruments and
developmental flying - like a club/sports class contest or two. My old std
Cirrus is still teaching me things after 5 years. Though the Kestrel is
introducing me to the dark side of performance enhancing stuff like span, and
flaps...


noel.wade wrote:
> On Mar 28, 11:54 am, Ramy > wrote:
>>> Most of the gliders you mentioned in your higher price range ($35K-
>> $40K) are available in your previous price range ($25K-$30K), at least
>> in the US. Pegasus for even less.
>>
>> Ramy
>
> Ramy -
>
> Even though metal and old glass ships have been losing value, prices
> on 80's glass has been holding steady or going up. I blame it on the
> Euro-Dollar disparity and the widening gap between the cost of used
> vs. new gliders (encouraging more folks to stick with 80's and 90's
> glass).
>
> I know of 1 DG-300 in so-so condition that sold for just over $30k
> recently. High-end DG-300's and 303's have been selling quite rapidly
> at $50k - $60k. I don't know of ANY ASW-20's that have sold for under
> $30k recently.
>
> But having said that, your point is well taken. I have often debated
> whether the minor performance differences between a Mosquito and an
> ASW-20 / LS-6 / DG-300 are worth the extra cost (especially since I
> fly in such weak conditions). Wouldn't I be better with an older ship
> and use the "extra" money to improve it? The thing is, those older
> ships leave more to be desired in terms of ergonomics, rigging, and
> resale value. And I've decided that those traits ARE worth some
> money. How much - well that's a matter of opinion...
>
> --Noel

[noel.wade]

On Mar 28, 1:43*pm, Bruce > wrote:
> Wings and wheels has a 19m Kestrel on it for a lot less than this.

> So - If what you want to do is fly XC - it might be an idea. Lots of performance
> for little money means you can spend more on good instruments, and aerotow..
>
> Just my 2c.
>

Bruce -

Thanks for the info. I've looked at the Kestrels a few times; but
have decided against anything over 15m span (unless the tips are
detachable and it can also be flown in 15m configuration). We've got
some small land-out areas and narrow runways in certain places, and I
wouldn't feel comfortable with an 18m wing (or bigger) in those
situations.

Also - my Russia has a 2-piece canopy. I don't hate it, but since I
operate out of a busy airport and I fly in amazingly beautiful
mountains, I really want a 1-piece canopy. Some people want a certain
wing-shape or fuselage shape - me I want a single-piece canopy. ;-)

Finally - my Russia has spoiled me. I can rig single-handed with
nothing but a blanket and a small wooden stool - and in 7 minutes! I
think I can bear rigging a normal 15m ship... But a heavy 19m wing
makes me wince just thinking about it! All my friends have
lightweight Apises and Libelles and DG-300s - they'd probably get a
bit gruff with me after awhile! ;-)

Thanks, though...

--Noel

[Bob Kuykendall]

> Also - my Russia has a 2-piece canopy. I don't hate it, but since I
> operate out of a busy airport and I fly in amazingly beautiful
> mountains, I really want a 1-piece canopy. Some people want a certain
> wing-shape or fuselage shape - me I want a single-piece canopy. ;-)

Noel, we can make that happen, I'm pretty sure I can get the plastic
you need. Just let me know.

But if you do buy JJs DG-300, I'll throw in a "Got Ondulation?" T-
shirt for free!

Thanks, Bob K.