DG Differences...

[noel.wade]

Hi All,

This is a bit of a loaded question (I think both sellers are
contributors to RAS) - but I'd like to get as much feedback as
possible from as wide of an audience as possible...

I've been agonizing (here and elsewhere) between the niceties of a
DG-300 and the flapped flexibilities of an ASW-20.

Someone just reminded me of the DG-202/17 on W&W (which I'd earlier
looked at and passed up), and they thought it might be worth
considering again as a potential "meet in the middle" option between
the DG-300 and the ASW-20.

On the one hand, the DG-202/17 isn't automatic hookups like the
DG-300; but it does seem to have the nicer canopy and much of the
prized ergonomics of the DG-300.

With flaps, it should have a flatter polar than the DG-300 (maybe not
100% ASW-20 performance, but possibly not degrade as much in the 65 -
80 knot range where the DG-300 and most other Std-Class ships really
start to lose out to flapped ships).

Again, I'm going to be flying in 2 - 5 knot lift with 4,000'
cloudbases a lot of the time; so raw speed isn't important to me in
terms of strong conditions... I just want to make enough speed to take
advantage of moderate day lengths and still go cross-country (as well
as fly in the desert a couple of times a year, and maybe compete in a
Regional each year in the Sports Class).

The 17m tips of the DG-202/17 are also intriguing. Coming from a
Russia AC-4 its would be quite a change if I go that route! But at
the same time, I often watch a local Open Cirrus just cruise (lumber)
along with its 17m wings on such a flat glide - I must admit I am
envious! I don't know what the DG-202/17 maneuverability is like; but
if it is decent then the extra span might be nice for those scratchy
days where I still want to stretch out and fly XC.

Of course, I don't know what condition this particular DG-202/17 is
in. JJ's DG-300 is getting all-new Urethane and a nice panel; so the
value there is well-known (and he knows it, too). But the DG-202/17
is selling for less, and the question is: How much less does it have
to be in order for the DG-202/17 to become a more attractive deal?

The bottom line is that I'm trying to get the best glider for my local
flying conditions (weak to moderate with low to middling cloudbases),
and my flying style (which requires crisp & responsive handling, good
cockpit ergonomics, and hopefully easy rigging). I am trying at this
point to view both gliders next week while I'm travelling to
California for vacation.

Any thoughts or details would be very much appreciated! I can't find
a good measured polar for a DG-202 (just 200's and 400's), so anyone
with a good polar for the aircraft and/or other information on the
detailed differences between the DG-200 and the DG-202 would be great
(I know what's on the Sailplane Directory, but its pretty basic info
about the differences)!

Thanks in advance,

--Noel

[Jim[_18_]]

On Apr 15, 7:27*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This is a bit of a loaded question (I think both sellers are
> contributors to RAS) - but I'd like to get as much feedback as
> possible from as wide of an audience as possible...
>
> I've been agonizing (here and elsewhere) between the niceties of a
> DG-300 and the flapped flexibilities of an ASW-20.
>
> Someone just reminded me of the DG-202/17 on W&W (which I'd earlier
> looked at and passed up), and they thought it might be worth
> considering again as a potential "meet in the middle" option between
> the DG-300 and the ASW-20.
>
> On the one hand, the DG-202/17 isn't automatic hookups like the
> DG-300; but it does seem to have the nicer canopy and much of the
> prized ergonomics of the DG-300.
>
> With flaps, it should have a flatter polar than the DG-300 (maybe not
> 100% ASW-20 performance, but possibly not degrade as much in the 65 -
> 80 knot range where the DG-300 and most other Std-Class ships really
> start to lose out to flapped ships).
>
> Again, I'm going to be flying in 2 - 5 knot lift with 4,000'
> cloudbases a lot of the time; so raw speed isn't important to me in
> terms of strong conditions... I just want to make enough speed to take
> advantage of moderate day lengths and still go cross-country (as well
> as fly in the desert a couple of times a year, and maybe compete in a
> Regional each year in the Sports Class).
>
> The 17m tips of the DG-202/17 are also intriguing. *Coming from a
> Russia AC-4 its would be quite a change if I go that route! *But at
> the same time, I often watch a local Open Cirrus just cruise (lumber)
> along with its 17m wings on such a flat glide - I must admit I am
> envious! *I don't know what the DG-202/17 maneuverability is like; but
> if it is decent then the extra span might be nice for those scratchy
> days where I still want to stretch out and fly XC.
>
> Of course, I don't know what condition this particular DG-202/17 is
> in. *JJ's DG-300 is getting all-new Urethane and a nice panel; so the
> value there is well-known (and he knows it, too). *But the DG-202/17
> is selling for less, and the question is: *How much less does it have
> to be in order for the DG-202/17 to become a more attractive deal?
>
> The bottom line is that I'm trying to get the best glider for my local
> flying conditions (weak to moderate with low to middling cloudbases),
> and my flying style (which requires crisp & responsive handling, good
> cockpit ergonomics, and hopefully easy rigging). *I am trying at this
> point to view both gliders next week while I'm travelling to
> California for vacation.
>
> Any thoughts or details would be very much appreciated! *I can't find
> a good measured polar for a DG-202 (just 200's and 400's), so anyone
> with a good polar for the aircraft and/or other information on the
> detailed differences between the DG-200 and the DG-202 would be great
> (I know what's on the Sailplane Directory, but its pretty basic info
> about the differences)!
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> --Noel

I had a DG-600 that I loved very much, the seating was comfortable
even for 10 hour flights.

The ASW-20 is a great glider, I've enjoyed flying them as they have
great handling, and great performance. I've owned a ASW-17 and now a
ASH-26E, my only complaint about AS gliders is that my size 11 1/2
feet don't fit in the pointy nose very well. I'm 5' 11" and have to
have the rudder pedals fairly far forward and my toes rub on the nose
even with the smallest shoes that I could find after shopping at
numerous stores. Flew the 17 somewhat pigeon toed and found it to be
painful a few hours into the flight. I love my 26 and am looking
forward to flying her when I get back from my work trip.

The performance for most modern gliders is good. Have loved all the
gliders that I've owned, especially the LS-6. I'm on the conservative
side and have not needed the full glide performance of my ship,
although it seemed like I did as the glides are so flat. In spite of
that have had many really fun flights. I believe that Walt Rogers did
his first 1000 km flight in his DG-300.

Jim D
Boulder City, Nevada

[[email protected]]

On Apr 15, 11:58*pm, Jim > wrote:
> On Apr 15, 7:27*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > This is a bit of a loaded question (I think both sellers are
> > contributors to RAS) - but I'd like to get as much feedback as
> > possible from as wide of an audience as possible...
>
> > I've been agonizing (here and elsewhere) between the niceties of a
> > DG-300 and the flapped flexibilities of an ASW-20.
>
> > Someone just reminded me of the DG-202/17 on W&W (which I'd earlier
> > looked at and passed up), and they thought it might be worth
> > considering again as a potential "meet in the middle" option between
> > the DG-300 and the ASW-20.
>
> > On the one hand, the DG-202/17 isn't automatic hookups like the
> > DG-300; but it does seem to have the nicer canopy and much of the
> > prized ergonomics of the DG-300.
>
> > With flaps, it should have a flatter polar than the DG-300 (maybe not
> > 100% ASW-20 performance, but possibly not degrade as much in the 65 -
> > 80 knot range where the DG-300 and most other Std-Class ships really
> > start to lose out to flapped ships).
>
> > Again, I'm going to be flying in 2 - 5 knot lift with 4,000'
> > cloudbases a lot of the time; so raw speed isn't important to me in
> > terms of strong conditions... I just want to make enough speed to take
> > advantage of moderate day lengths and still go cross-country (as well
> > as fly in the desert a couple of times a year, and maybe compete in a
> > Regional each year in the Sports Class).
>
> > The 17m tips of the DG-202/17 are also intriguing. *Coming from a
> > Russia AC-4 its would be quite a change if I go that route! *But at
> > the same time, I often watch a local Open Cirrus just cruise (lumber)
> > along with its 17m wings on such a flat glide - I must admit I am
> > envious! *I don't know what the DG-202/17 maneuverability is like; but
> > if it is decent then the extra span might be nice for those scratchy
> > days where I still want to stretch out and fly XC.
>
> > Of course, I don't know what condition this particular DG-202/17 is
> > in. *JJ's DG-300 is getting all-new Urethane and a nice panel; so the
> > value there is well-known (and he knows it, too). *But the DG-202/17
> > is selling for less, and the question is: *How much less does it have
> > to be in order for the DG-202/17 to become a more attractive deal?
>
> > The bottom line is that I'm trying to get the best glider for my local
> > flying conditions (weak to moderate with low to middling cloudbases),
> > and my flying style (which requires crisp & responsive handling, good
> > cockpit ergonomics, and hopefully easy rigging). *I am trying at this
> > point to view both gliders next week while I'm travelling to
> > California for vacation.
>
> > Any thoughts or details would be very much appreciated! *I can't find
> > a good measured polar for a DG-202 (just 200's and 400's), so anyone
> > with a good polar for the aircraft and/or other information on the
> > detailed differences between the DG-200 and the DG-202 would be great
> > (I know what's on the Sailplane Directory, but its pretty basic info
> > about the differences)!
>
> > Thanks in advance,
>
> > --Noel
>
> I had a DG-600 that I loved very much, the seating was comfortable
> even for 10 hour flights.
>
> The ASW-20 is a great glider, I've enjoyed flying them as they have
> great handling, and great performance. I've owned a ASW-17 and now a
> ASH-26E, my only complaint about AS gliders is that my size 11 1/2
> feet don't fit in the pointy nose very well. I'm 5' 11" and have to
> have the rudder pedals fairly far forward and my toes rub on the nose
> even with the smallest shoes that I could find after shopping at
> numerous stores. Flew the 17 somewhat pigeon toed and found it to be
> painful a few hours into the flight. I love my 26 and am looking
> forward to flying her when I get back from my work trip.
>
> The performance for most modern gliders is good. Have loved all the
> gliders that I've owned, especially the LS-6. I'm on the conservative
> side and have not needed the full glide performance of my ship,
> although it seemed like I did as the glides are so flat. In spite of
> that have had many really fun flights. I believe that Walt Rogers did
> his first 1000 km flight in his DG-300.
>
> Jim D
> Boulder City, Nevada- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I owned a 202 15/17 for about 5 years. I absolutely loved it but
traded up to a DG 400 for the self launch so I guess I'm still flying
one in a way. . Handling was great, and glide was plenty good too.
Built like a tank. Big tough main gear. Good gelcoat. I had several
"old timers" since deceased come up to me on the ramp unsolicited and
tell me that they had flown everything and the 202 was the best
handling glider they had flown. (Their words not mine so if you
disagree take it up with God, they're dead.) Loved the flaps for
landing and speed, I did well in our regionals sports class with it.
I actually preferred the 15m, it seemed to handle better for me. The
17m might give you 5% better glide. Long fuselage compared to other
gliders, I liked it . If I was in the market for that vintage glider
I would defintely buy one again in a heartbeat if it was in good
shape. Word is the airfoil isn't so good in the rain, never tested it

[JS]

I believe that Walt Rogers did
> his first 1000 km flight in his DG-300.
>

Confirmed. I was his crew, but flew a 500 O/R in my LS-6 (later
owned by Jim D, Boulder City, NV) first. We are an inbred bunch.
Noel, I'm surprised you didn't snap up AS-W20 "SW" or the 20C that
recently sold.
Jim

[Lars Peder Hansen]

As with any of these "which glider should I buy" questions, my first comment
would be: Do not underestimate the value of a good trailer!
At the end of the day, the state of your trailer will probably have had a
much larger impact on your experience than a few percent of performance
difference between gliders. Having a good, well functioning trailer that
makes assembly/disassembly easy and scratch-safe really adds to the joy of
soaring.

DG has always used better gelcoat than most competitors, including
Schleicher and the LS folks. Many DG gliders will have excellent original
gelcoat, even as they age considerably.

The '202 uses a traditional Wortmann wing profile that is known to be quite
sensitive to rain and bugs. -Something to consider if you live in the rain
forest ;-)

The ASW-20 is a classic and an absolute joy to fly.

Oh, and if God had meant for us to fly unflapped gliders, he would have had
given us only one arm ;-)

Happy Soaring with whatever you choose,
Lars Peder
DG-600/18, Denmark


"noel.wade" > wrote in message
...
> Hi All,
>
> This is a bit of a loaded question (I think both sellers are
> contributors to RAS) - but I'd like to get as much feedback as
> possible from as wide of an audience as possible...
>
> I've been agonizing (here and elsewhere) between the niceties of a
> DG-300 and the flapped flexibilities of an ASW-20.
>
> Someone just reminded me of the DG-202/17 on W&W (which I'd earlier
> looked at and passed up), and they thought it might be worth
> considering again as a potential "meet in the middle" option between
> the DG-300 and the ASW-20.
>
> On the one hand, the DG-202/17 isn't automatic hookups like the
> DG-300; but it does seem to have the nicer canopy and much of the
> prized ergonomics of the DG-300.
>
> With flaps, it should have a flatter polar than the DG-300 (maybe not
> 100% ASW-20 performance, but possibly not degrade as much in the 65 -
> 80 knot range where the DG-300 and most other Std-Class ships really
> start to lose out to flapped ships).
>
> Again, I'm going to be flying in 2 - 5 knot lift with 4,000'
> cloudbases a lot of the time; so raw speed isn't important to me in
> terms of strong conditions... I just want to make enough speed to take
> advantage of moderate day lengths and still go cross-country (as well
> as fly in the desert a couple of times a year, and maybe compete in a
> Regional each year in the Sports Class).
>
> The 17m tips of the DG-202/17 are also intriguing. Coming from a
> Russia AC-4 its would be quite a change if I go that route! But at
> the same time, I often watch a local Open Cirrus just cruise (lumber)
> along with its 17m wings on such a flat glide - I must admit I am
> envious! I don't know what the DG-202/17 maneuverability is like; but
> if it is decent then the extra span might be nice for those scratchy
> days where I still want to stretch out and fly XC.
>
> Of course, I don't know what condition this particular DG-202/17 is
> in. JJ's DG-300 is getting all-new Urethane and a nice panel; so the
> value there is well-known (and he knows it, too). But the DG-202/17
> is selling for less, and the question is: How much less does it have
> to be in order for the DG-202/17 to become a more attractive deal?
>
> The bottom line is that I'm trying to get the best glider for my local
> flying conditions (weak to moderate with low to middling cloudbases),
> and my flying style (which requires crisp & responsive handling, good
> cockpit ergonomics, and hopefully easy rigging). I am trying at this
> point to view both gliders next week while I'm travelling to
> California for vacation.
>
> Any thoughts or details would be very much appreciated! I can't find
> a good measured polar for a DG-202 (just 200's and 400's), so anyone
> with a good polar for the aircraft and/or other information on the
> detailed differences between the DG-200 and the DG-202 would be great
> (I know what's on the Sailplane Directory, but its pretty basic info
> about the differences)!
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> --Noel

[noel.wade]

On Apr 16, 8:45*am, JS > wrote:
> *I believe that Walt Rogers did
>
> > his first 1000 km flight in his DG-300.
>
> * Confirmed. I was his crew, but flew a 500 O/R in my LS-6 (later
> owned by Jim D, Boulder City, NV) first. We are an inbred bunch.
> Noel, I'm surprised you didn't snap up AS-W20 "SW" or the 20C that
> recently sold.
> Jim

Jim -

My raise at work has been held up, so I don't quite yet have the cash
on hand to make an instant-deal. I've got a commitment from my
Banker / Loan-Officer (who's a pilot and whom I have a good
relationship with), and the only open question really is what to do
about the $10k I still owe on my Russia AC-4. :-/

But in the next 1 - 2 weeks I should be ready to pounce! ;-)

--Noel

[Ramy]

On Apr 16, 4:23*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 8:45*am, JS > wrote:
>
> > *I believe that Walt Rogers did
>
> > > his first 1000 km flight in his DG-300.
>
> > * Confirmed. I was his crew, but flew a 500 O/R in my LS-6 (later
> > owned by Jim D, Boulder City, NV) first. We are an inbred bunch.
> > Noel, I'm surprised you didn't snap up AS-W20 "SW" or the 20C that
> > recently sold.
> > Jim
>
> Jim -
>
> My raise at work has been held up, so I don't quite yet have the cash
> on hand to make an instant-deal. *I've got a commitment from my
> Banker / Loan-Officer (who's a pilot and whom I have a good
> relationship with), and the only open question really is what to do
> about the $10k I still owe on my Russia AC-4. :-/
>
> But in the next 1 - 2 weeks I should be ready to pounce! ;-)
>
> --Noel

I am not familar with the 202, but as someone who flew standard class
for almost 10 years (LS4) and now flying a flapped ship (ASW27) I can
tell you that I love the flaps and that flaps indeed have advantage
for serious XC flying or competitions in moderate to strong
conditions, however it should not be your main decision point, and if
you are going to fly consrvative XC in only moderate conditions or
compete in spots class, the flaps will do very little to your bottom
line, while they will certainly add to your work load, especially
during take off and landings. Landing flaps are nice, but in 10 years
of many outlandings I never had a situation which I wished I had
landing flaps. So boottom line, take everything into account and go
for the glider you like best, in better condition, has better trailer,
better resale value, easier to rig an maintain and to get service, has
better reputation, more popular etc etc. and keep the flap somehwre
lower in your evaluation list. And last, you should completly ignore
facts such as how many kms or which contest or record someone won in
one ship or another, it is 99% combination of pilot,weather, location
and timing. Flaps and L/D are only a small factor.

Ramy

[noel.wade]

Thanks All,

On the flaps vs. no-flaps argument, I guess it would be best to use a
hypothetical situation:

Imagine you have cloudbases that are 3000' to 4000' AGL.
Terrain is somewhat mountainous, but the cloudbases rise with the
terrain (20 miles east of the airport you might have 7000' - 8000' MSL
bases over a 5000' MSL mountain).
The lift is maxing out between 4 knots and 6 knots, with a lot of 2 to
3 knotters mixed in.
The Cu are 4 - 6 miles apart.
Winds are 5 - 10 knots, with the best soaring areas downwind from your
home field (so you face a mild upwind glide home).
Your total "window" for soaring is a 5 hour period during the day when
conditions are going to be generating lift.
The lift is workable from 1000' AGL to cloudbase, but staying within
1500' of cloubase seems much more comfortable.

This is a pretty typical "decent" soaring day in Western Washington.

So the question for you flapped pilots is: Would you be pushing your
speed up enough in this situation to actually be using your flaps?

....Assume you're trying to do good cross-country flying - not super-
agressive contest-like flying, but also not just puttering around
within 15 miles of the airport either.

Thanks!

--Noel

[Ramy]

On Apr 16, 5:50*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Thanks All,
>
> On the flaps vs. no-flaps argument, I guess it would be best to use a
> hypothetical situation:
>
> Imagine you have cloudbases that are 3000' to 4000' AGL.
> Terrain is somewhat mountainous, but the cloudbases rise with the
> terrain (20 miles east of the airport you might have 7000' - 8000' MSL
> bases over a 5000' MSL mountain).
> The lift is maxing out between 4 knots and 6 knots, with a lot of 2 to
> 3 knotters mixed in.
> The Cu are 4 - 6 miles apart.
> Winds are 5 - 10 knots, with the best soaring areas downwind from your
> home field (so you face a mild upwind glide home).
> Your total "window" for soaring is a 5 hour period during the day when
> conditions are going to be generating lift.
> The lift is workable from 1000' AGL to cloudbase, but staying within
> 1500' of cloubase seems much more comfortable.
>
> This is a pretty typical "decent" soaring day in Western Washington.
>
> So the question for you flapped pilots is: *Would you be pushing your
> speed up enough in this situation to actually be using your flaps?
>
> ...Assume you're trying to do good cross-country flying - not super-
> agressive contest-like flying, but also not just puttering around
> within 15 miles of the airport either.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --Noel

This is the typical soaring conditions at my home area. We always use
the flaps, no matter how strong or weak the soaring conditions are,
since you need to change from thermaling to cruising flap. In a flap
ship you must change flaps, otherwise your performance will probably
be worse then a standard ship. If you want to know how the glider
performance will impact your results, just look at the handicap
difference between the gliders you consider and can assume that your
speed and/or distance will roughly differ by this handicap, typically
in the 5% range.

Ramy

[Greg Arnold]

I think you are over-analyzing this issue. The difference between flaps
and no flaps is so small that you won't notice it. What difference does
it make if a recreational flight is 300 km (no flaps) rather than 315 km
(flaps)?

In contrast, you will notice if your glider is hard to rig, has a poor
trailer, or isn't comfortable or fun to fly. Those are the things that
you should be focusing on.



noel.wade wrote:
> Thanks All,
>
> On the flaps vs. no-flaps argument, I guess it would be best to use a
> hypothetical situation:
>
> Imagine you have cloudbases that are 3000' to 4000' AGL.
> Terrain is somewhat mountainous, but the cloudbases rise with the
> terrain (20 miles east of the airport you might have 7000' - 8000' MSL
> bases over a 5000' MSL mountain).
> The lift is maxing out between 4 knots and 6 knots, with a lot of 2 to
> 3 knotters mixed in.
> The Cu are 4 - 6 miles apart.
> Winds are 5 - 10 knots, with the best soaring areas downwind from your
> home field (so you face a mild upwind glide home).
> Your total "window" for soaring is a 5 hour period during the day when
> conditions are going to be generating lift.
> The lift is workable from 1000' AGL to cloudbase, but staying within
> 1500' of cloubase seems much more comfortable.
>
> This is a pretty typical "decent" soaring day in Western Washington.
>
> So the question for you flapped pilots is: Would you be pushing your
> speed up enough in this situation to actually be using your flaps?
>
> ...Assume you're trying to do good cross-country flying - not super-
> agressive contest-like flying, but also not just puttering around
> within 15 miles of the airport either.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --Noel

[Eric Greenwell]

Greg Arnold wrote:
> I think you are over-analyzing this issue. The difference between flaps
> and no flaps is so small that you won't notice it. What difference does
> it make if a recreational flight is 300 km (no flaps) rather than 315 km
> (flaps)?
>
> In contrast, you will notice if your glider is hard to rig, has a poor
> trailer, or isn't comfortable or fun to fly. Those are the things that
> you should be focusing on.

Amen, Brother Arnold! Especially in the conditions Noel describes,
speeds will be low, and flaps will make an insignificant difference in
the soaring performance.

Where flaps can make an important difference is in landing. You will be
able to put an ASW 20 into a shorter field than an Standard Class
glider. The landing flaps (60 degree deflection on the original 20, 40
degree deflection on the B and C models) let you arrive more steeply,
more slowly, and stop more quickly than an unflapped glider of similar
soaring performance.

My experience in Western Washington (2 flights) isn't enough to advise
you about field size!

--
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

[Brad[_2_]]

Easy decision..................I fly an Aps-13 in just these
conditions and kick ass!

Brad

[noel.wade]

Just to assuage everyone's concerns: I am very familiar with the
importance of a trailer and good rigging. This is why I'm especially
keen on automatic hookups and something like a Cobra trailer. I've
SEEN the difference a trailer makes when I help certain people at my
field rig (even just in the difference between bracing / tie-down
methods in similar trailers can have a big impact), and understand
this point very well.

As for flapped performance: The reason I talk about speed is because
if you look at things like Idaflieg test data, the polar of say a
DG-300 and an ASW-20 are nearly identical at similar wing-loadings, at
about 55 knots and below. Above that the ASW-20 starts winning out by
a small margin to around 75 knots, and then above that the negative
flap settings seem to make a pretty noticeable difference in the polar
and the ASW-20 is the clear winner.

As another example: Look at the Johnson review of the ASW-20. Check
out the composite polar diagrams. Looks like you have to get up over
75 knots before the negative flaps really start becoming superior to
the 0-degree flap position.

This is why I'm phrasing things in terms of speed or XC distance/
aggressiveness. The "climb" flaps of the ASW-20 are certainly
superior (in small but noticeable ways) to the standard-class ships of
the late-70's. But the 80's standard-class ships seem to be equal to
the ASW-20 in terms of minimum sink and low-speed polar curves. Newer
airfoils seem to have a smaller "knee" in the polar curve at middling
speeds, but its still there for any standard-class ship. However its
the upper end of the polar that really seems to be the difference
(ignoring the landing-flaps deal). Am I off-base here?

*shrug* My longest XC flight so far is ~130 miles total distance-over-
ground on a 4 hour flight that didn't actually get too far from home-
base (low clouds in the mountains kept me from going where I wanted).
I'd like to be able to push a little harder to get from cloud to cloud
and cover more ground - but I'm not eager to risk landouts like one or
two "aggressive" pilots in my club who get low a lot, and land out a
good 3 - 4 times every year.

My XC experience to date is in a Russia AC-4 so I'm not sure how huge
of a jump its going to be when I move up to a 40:1 ship; maybe that
increase in performance alone will be enough to make me feel better
about cloud-hopping at slightly higher than best-L/D speed, or
stretching out a bit further to find lift.

I just don't have the experience to know if I'm really going to be
jonesing for that flap handle after I fly a standard-class ship for a
year... I thrive on challenges and new experiences - being bored with
my ship would be a nightmare!

Take care,

--Noel
P.S. Brad - I already looked at an Apis kit. Price of the Euro has
killed that for me! :-P

[Ramy]

On Apr 16, 10:23*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Just to assuage everyone's concerns: *I am very familiar with the
> importance of a trailer and good rigging. *This is why I'm especially
> keen on automatic hookups and something like a Cobra trailer. *I've
> SEEN the difference a trailer makes when I help certain people at my
> field rig (even just in the difference between bracing / tie-down
> methods in similar trailers can have a big impact), and understand
> this point very well.
>
> As for flapped performance: *The reason I talk about speed is because
> if you look at things like Idaflieg test data, the polar of say a
> DG-300 and an ASW-20 are nearly identical at similar wing-loadings, at
> about 55 knots and below. *Above that the ASW-20 starts winning out by
> a small margin to around 75 knots, and then above that the negative
> flap settings seem to make a pretty noticeable difference in the polar
> and the ASW-20 is the clear winner.
>
> As another example: *Look at the Johnson review of the ASW-20. *Check
> out the composite polar diagrams. *Looks like you have to get up over
> 75 knots before the negative flaps really start becoming superior to
> the 0-degree flap position.
>
> This is why I'm phrasing things in terms of speed or XC distance/
> aggressiveness. *The "climb" flaps of the ASW-20 are certainly
> superior (in small but noticeable ways) to the standard-class ships of
> the late-70's. *But the 80's standard-class ships seem to be equal to
> the ASW-20 in terms of minimum sink and low-speed polar curves. *Newer
> airfoils seem to have a smaller "knee" in the polar curve at middling
> speeds, but its still there for any standard-class ship. *However its
> the upper end of the polar that really seems to be the difference
> (ignoring the landing-flaps deal). *Am I off-base here?
>
> *shrug* *My longest XC flight so far is ~130 miles total distance-over-
> ground on a 4 hour flight that didn't actually get too far from home-
> base (low clouds in the mountains kept me from going where I wanted).
> I'd like to be able to push a little harder to get from cloud to cloud
> and cover more ground - but I'm not eager to risk landouts like one or
> two "aggressive" pilots in my club who get low a lot, and land out a
> good 3 - 4 times every year.
>
> My XC experience to date is in a Russia AC-4 so I'm not sure how huge
> of a jump its going to be when I move up to a 40:1 ship; maybe that
> increase in performance alone will be enough to make me feel better
> about cloud-hopping at slightly higher than best-L/D speed, or
> stretching out a bit further to find lift.
>
> I just don't have the experience to know if I'm really going to be
> jonesing for that flap handle after I fly a standard-class ship for a
> year... *I thrive on challenges and new experiences - being bored with
> my ship would be a nightmare!
>
> Take care,
>
> --Noel
> P.S. *Brad - I already looked at an Apis kit. *Price of the Euro has
> killed that for me! :-P

We understand your reasons. Hopefully you uderstand what we are all
saying, flaps or no flaps will not make much of a differece to your XC
results, as handicap shows. Almost everything else matter much more to
your overall experience. Either the 300 or the 20 will perform much
better than your Russia, and will look much better as well.

Ramy

[rocha]

I was looking for an ASW20 and ended up buying a DG300, for different
reasons: the easy rigging as you mention, the amazing visibility
(it's sooo cool), the price - with the restrictions introduced in
europe prices went down significantly, the good condition of the one i
found, the reports from friends on how much pleasure it is to fly one.

For an ASW20 the only version i could find at the time in the same
price range was the F, and i was told this is not exactly the same as
a B or C. I was told the F demands more attention and experience from
the pilot as it has a bigger tendency to stall when not flown
properly. Considering my experience i feel better now knowing my DG
would never treat me in such a way... and i give her the same caring
treatment in return.

If i would find an ASW20 and a DG300 on the same price range, i would
pick the one in best condition and better equipped. I got an LX5000, a
FLARM, a Komet trailer and a nice interior which i now value a lot.
Seriously... you think you would get bored with a non-flapped 15m ship
that has 40+ glide ratio?

Ricardo

On Apr 17, 7:23 am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Just to assuage everyone's concerns: I am very familiar with the
> importance of a trailer and good rigging. This is why I'm especially
> keen on automatic hookups and something like a Cobra trailer. I've
> SEEN the difference a trailer makes when I help certain people at my
> field rig (even just in the difference between bracing / tie-down
> methods in similar trailers can have a big impact), and understand
> this point very well.
>
> As for flapped performance: The reason I talk about speed is because
> if you look at things like Idaflieg test data, the polar of say a
> DG-300 and an ASW-20 are nearly identical at similar wing-loadings, at
> about 55 knots and below. Above that the ASW-20 starts winning out by
> a small margin to around 75 knots, and then above that the negative
> flap settings seem to make a pretty noticeable difference in the polar
> and the ASW-20 is the clear winner.
>
> As another example: Look at the Johnson review of the ASW-20. Check
> out the composite polar diagrams. Looks like you have to get up over
> 75 knots before the negative flaps really start becoming superior to
> the 0-degree flap position.
>
> This is why I'm phrasing things in terms of speed or XC distance/
> aggressiveness. The "climb" flaps of the ASW-20 are certainly
> superior (in small but noticeable ways) to the standard-class ships of
> the late-70's. But the 80's standard-class ships seem to be equal to
> the ASW-20 in terms of minimum sink and low-speed polar curves. Newer
> airfoils seem to have a smaller "knee" in the polar curve at middling
> speeds, but its still there for any standard-class ship. However its
> the upper end of the polar that really seems to be the difference
> (ignoring the landing-flaps deal). Am I off-base here?
>
> *shrug* My longest XC flight so far is ~130 miles total distance-over-
> ground on a 4 hour flight that didn't actually get too far from home-
> base (low clouds in the mountains kept me from going where I wanted).
> I'd like to be able to push a little harder to get from cloud to cloud
> and cover more ground - but I'm not eager to risk landouts like one or
> two "aggressive" pilots in my club who get low a lot, and land out a
> good 3 - 4 times every year.
>
> My XC experience to date is in a Russia AC-4 so I'm not sure how huge
> of a jump its going to be when I move up to a 40:1 ship; maybe that
> increase in performance alone will be enough to make me feel better
> about cloud-hopping at slightly higher than best-L/D speed, or
> stretching out a bit further to find lift.
>
> I just don't have the experience to know if I'm really going to be
> jonesing for that flap handle after I fly a standard-class ship for a
> year... I thrive on challenges and new experiences - being bored with
> my ship would be a nightmare!
>
> Take care,
>
> --Noel
> P.S. Brad - I already looked at an Apis kit. Price of the Euro has
> killed that for me! :-P

[Andreas Maurer[_1_]]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:50:24 -0700 (PDT), "noel.wade"
> wrote:

>So the question for you flapped pilots is: Would you be pushing your
>speed up enough in this situation to actually be using your flaps?

Noel,

flaps only increase your highspeed performance. The better the
weather, the more advantage a flapped glider will have.

The index values show this pretty well: A flapped glider has up to 7
percent more prformance than a standard class glider, meaning that
your cruise speed is going to be 7 percent faster at best.

Judge yourself if you really need this... :)


Bye
Andreas

[D.Rizzato]

As long as you don't purchase one from Falcon Gauge
there are Chinese made, mine lasted 75 hours
and they like to charge me what ever it takes to
repair it, but will charge you up front $ 350 bucks
Cheers



"noel.wade" > wrote in message
...
> Hi All,
>
> This is a bit of a loaded question (I think both sellers are
> contributors to RAS) - but I'd like to get as much feedback as
> possible from as wide of an audience as possible...
>
> I've been agonizing (here and elsewhere) between the niceties of a
> DG-300 and the flapped flexibilities of an ASW-20.
>
> Someone just reminded me of the DG-202/17 on W&W (which I'd earlier
> looked at and passed up), and they thought it might be worth
> considering again as a potential "meet in the middle" option between
> the DG-300 and the ASW-20.
>
> On the one hand, the DG-202/17 isn't automatic hookups like the
> DG-300; but it does seem to have the nicer canopy and much of the
> prized ergonomics of the DG-300.
>
> With flaps, it should have a flatter polar than the DG-300 (maybe not
> 100% ASW-20 performance, but possibly not degrade as much in the 65 -
> 80 knot range where the DG-300 and most other Std-Class ships really
> start to lose out to flapped ships).
>
> Again, I'm going to be flying in 2 - 5 knot lift with 4,000'
> cloudbases a lot of the time; so raw speed isn't important to me in
> terms of strong conditions... I just want to make enough speed to take
> advantage of moderate day lengths and still go cross-country (as well
> as fly in the desert a couple of times a year, and maybe compete in a
> Regional each year in the Sports Class).
>
> The 17m tips of the DG-202/17 are also intriguing. Coming from a
> Russia AC-4 its would be quite a change if I go that route! But at
> the same time, I often watch a local Open Cirrus just cruise (lumber)
> along with its 17m wings on such a flat glide - I must admit I am
> envious! I don't know what the DG-202/17 maneuverability is like; but
> if it is decent then the extra span might be nice for those scratchy
> days where I still want to stretch out and fly XC.
>
> Of course, I don't know what condition this particular DG-202/17 is
> in. JJ's DG-300 is getting all-new Urethane and a nice panel; so the
> value there is well-known (and he knows it, too). But the DG-202/17
> is selling for less, and the question is: How much less does it have
> to be in order for the DG-202/17 to become a more attractive deal?
>
> The bottom line is that I'm trying to get the best glider for my local
> flying conditions (weak to moderate with low to middling cloudbases),
> and my flying style (which requires crisp & responsive handling, good
> cockpit ergonomics, and hopefully easy rigging). I am trying at this
> point to view both gliders next week while I'm travelling to
> California for vacation.
>
> Any thoughts or details would be very much appreciated! I can't find
> a good measured polar for a DG-202 (just 200's and 400's), so anyone
> with a good polar for the aircraft and/or other information on the
> detailed differences between the DG-200 and the DG-202 would be great
> (I know what's on the Sailplane Directory, but its pretty basic info
> about the differences)!
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> --Noel

[Discus 44]

On Apr 17, 9:05*am, "D.Rizzato" > wrote:
> As long as you don't purchase one from Falcon Gauge
> there are Chinese made, mine lasted 75 hours
> and they like to charge me what ever it takes to
> repair it, but will charge you up front $ 350 bucks
> Cheers
>
> "noel.wade" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > This is a bit of a loaded question (I think both sellers are
> > contributors to RAS) - but I'd like to get as much feedback as
> > possible from as wide of an audience as possible...
>
> > I've been agonizing (here and elsewhere) between the niceties of a
> > DG-300 and the flapped flexibilities of an ASW-20.
>
> > Someone just reminded me of the DG-202/17 on W&W (which I'd earlier
> > looked at and passed up), and they thought it might be worth
> > considering again as a potential "meet in the middle" option between
> > the DG-300 and the ASW-20.
>
> > On the one hand, the DG-202/17 isn't automatic hookups like the
> > DG-300; but it does seem to have the nicer canopy and much of the
> > prized ergonomics of the DG-300.
>
> > With flaps, it should have a flatter polar than the DG-300 (maybe not
> > 100% ASW-20 performance, but possibly not degrade as much in the 65 -
> > 80 knot range where the DG-300 and most other Std-Class ships really
> > start to lose out to flapped ships).
>
> > Again, I'm going to be flying in 2 - 5 knot lift with 4,000'
> > cloudbases a lot of the time; so raw speed isn't important to me in
> > terms of strong conditions... I just want to make enough speed to take
> > advantage of moderate day lengths and still go cross-country (as well
> > as fly in the desert a couple of times a year, and maybe compete in a
> > Regional each year in the Sports Class).
>
> > The 17m tips of the DG-202/17 are also intriguing. *Coming from a
> > Russia AC-4 its would be quite a change if I go that route! *But at
> > the same time, I often watch a local Open Cirrus just cruise (lumber)
> > along with its 17m wings on such a flat glide - I must admit I am
> > envious! *I don't know what the DG-202/17 maneuverability is like; but
> > if it is decent then the extra span might be nice for those scratchy
> > days where I still want to stretch out and fly XC.
>
> > Of course, I don't know what condition this particular DG-202/17 is
> > in. *JJ's DG-300 is getting all-new Urethane and a nice panel; so the
> > value there is well-known (and he knows it, too). *But the DG-202/17
> > is selling for less, and the question is: *How much less does it have
> > to be in order for the DG-202/17 to become a more attractive deal?
>
> > The bottom line is that I'm trying to get the best glider for my local
> > flying conditions (weak to moderate with low to middling cloudbases),
> > and my flying style (which requires crisp & responsive handling, good
> > cockpit ergonomics, and hopefully easy rigging). *I am trying at this
> > point to view both gliders next week while I'm travelling to
> > California for vacation.
>
> > Any thoughts or details would be very much appreciated! *I can't find
> > a good measured polar for a DG-202 (just 200's and 400's), so anyone
> > with a good polar for the aircraft and/or other information on the
> > detailed differences between the DG-200 and the DG-202 would be great
> > (I know what's on the Sailplane Directory, but its pretty basic info
> > about the differences)!
>
> > Thanks in advance,
>
> > --Noel- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Noel:

The differences in the 15m vrs the Standard class is what you are
talking about. If you are set on having flaps then buy the flapped
ship. Either machine you go with will be a giant step forward with
respect to the AC-4. Handling, assembly, and all of that will be
noticably different and should be approached as with any new ship with
great care and attention to detail as to how to just get a circuit
under your belt. Cross country flying on the wet side of the
mountains will require carefully weighted descisions and execution to
provide you with a pucker free flight as in being closer to the ground
for the entire flight. I know many excellent flights have been made
on the west side of the mountains also. Consideration of outlanding
should also be taken into account. How much trouble is it to derig
and haul out of a field. What advantages if any does one have to off
field landings, cocpit safety structure, and susceptability for gear
doors to break and all that.

On the east side of WA you will have more altitude under you and the
flights longer most of the time. This gives you an advantage that you
can take more time to learn how you and your machine are getting
along. Long flights can be made with a little more ease.

It takes time to know your machine, it's polar and flight dynamics so
expect to take some time getting used to it. congratulations on your
ability to step up. Hope to see you in Ephrata soon.


T.Udd

[Eric Greenwell]

noel.wade wrote:

> As for flapped performance: The reason I talk about speed is because
> if you look at things like Idaflieg test data, the polar of say a
> DG-300 and an ASW-20 are nearly identical at similar wing-loadings, at
> about 55 knots and below. Above that the ASW-20 starts winning out by
> a small margin to around 75 knots, and then above that the negative
> flap settings seem to make a pretty noticeable difference in the polar
> and the ASW-20 is the clear winner.

I typically cruise at 70-80 knots in Eastern Washington conditions, and
that's in a 50:1, 18 meter, 8.3 pound wing loading glider. With your
experience and Western Washington conditions, I think it will be a rare
day when you will want to cruise at even 70 knots in 15 meter glider,
flapped or 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

[Papa3]

On Apr 16, 8:50*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Thanks All,
>
> On the flaps vs. no-flaps argument, I guess it would be best to use a
> hypothetical situation:
>
> Imagine you have cloudbases that are 3000' to 4000' AGL.
> Terrain is somewhat mountainous, but the cloudbases rise with the
> terrain (20 miles east of the airport you might have 7000' - 8000' MSL
> bases over a 5000' MSL mountain).
> The lift is maxing out between 4 knots and 6 knots, with a lot of 2 to
> 3 knotters mixed in.
> The Cu are 4 - 6 miles apart.
> Winds are 5 - 10 knots, with the best soaring areas downwind from your
> home field (so you face a mild upwind glide home).
> Your total "window" for soaring is a 5 hour period during the day when
> conditions are going to be generating lift.
> The lift is workable from 1000' AGL to cloudbase, but staying within
> 1500' of cloubase seems much more comfortable.
>
> This is a pretty typical "decent" soaring day in Western Washington.
>
> So the question for you flapped pilots is: *Would you be pushing your
> speed up enough in this situation to actually be using your flaps?
>
> ...Assume you're trying to do good cross-country flying - not super-
> agressive contest-like flying, but also not just puttering around
> within 15 miles of the airport either.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --Noel

Hi Noel,

As others are pointing out, forget about the "glide performance" or
speed issues between two similar vintage glass ships with and without
flaps. I fly in similar conditions at a club where we have probably
30 glass birds of mixed vintages and performance. There is a very
direct correlation between the impressive flights and impressive
pilots; there is almost no correlation between impressive flights
and flaps.

Since you've already absorbed the importance of trailers and automatic
hookups etc, the one thing I would consider in the flaps/no-flaps
debate is the off-field landing capabilities. So, the better question
to be asking yourself is whether you are going to be "pushing" a bit
such that you are making a few more off-field landings each year. In
other words, are you going to become a more aggressive XC pilot. As
Eric Greenwell mentions, there's probably nothing out there that beats
an early model 20 with landing flaps for shoe-horning into tight
fields. By comparison, my old LS-4, though very forgiving, couldn't
quite get into as small of a field as a 20, plus it suffered from the
achiles heel of LS gliders - a puny undercarriage.

One other huge factor is instruments. If ship "a" has a modern
panel (say a Cambridge 302 plus PDA, good pneumatics, a Becker or
Filser radio) while ship "b" has older stuff (say an M-Nav,
questionable TE compensation, and an old Terra radio), the better
panel will almost certainly add more to your XC performance, not to
mention the resale value of the glider.

Finally, if you really want to "do the numbers", a 5% increase in
performance for a flight that would have taken 4 hours means you save
maybe 12 minutes.... Is that really going to mean a significant
difference in the ability to achieve long distance XC flights? I
doubt it.

My 0.02.

Erik Mann
LS8-18 (P3)

[John Smith]

Nobody mentioned the obvious yet: If you're not after pure performance,
the "feel" of a glider will be far more important than 5% performance.
Some pilots just like flaps, others just hate them. You may prefer "the
feel" of one glider, an other pilot may prefer "the feel" of a different
glider. Go fly both and decide which one you prefer.

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:23:24 -0700, noel.wade wrote:

> This is why I'm phrasing things in terms of speed or XC distance/
> aggressiveness. The "climb" flaps of the ASW-20 are certainly
> superior (in small but noticeable ways) to the standard-class ships of
> the late-70's.
>
As a some-time 20 driver I found that I almost never used thermal flap.
The glider felt a lot livelier and climbed almost as well in zero flap.
I only used thermal flap when digging myself out of a hole in very weak
lift. I've been told that a 20 spins more easily in thermal flap though
didn't experience that.

If it helps any, read what Andreas Maurer had to say about flying the 20.
I found it very helpful. Mine was an early version with the Jesus flap
setting. A copy of his notes is here:

http://www.gregorie.org/gliding/asw20/asw20_handling.html

If you do go for the 20 you'll find that learning to fly a flapped glider
is rather like the experience that somebody who learnt to drive an
automatic car has when converting to a manual gearbox: the mechanics of
using the flaps is easy enough but the business of being in the right
flap setting at all times takes time and practise.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. |
org | Zappa fan & glider pilot

[g l i d e r s t u d]

I am not convinced that a flapped glider will land in a much smaller
field than non flapped glider. I owned a Discus2, and I landed it
out...more times than I would like to discuss in this forum. I am not
going to go into field landing techniques, but I could land very low
energy, nose high, and stop in amazingly short fields, without hitting
the nose on the ground. When taking the glider to the hanger I would
touchdown before the beginning of the hanger and pull around the
corner. total rolling distance is under 130ft in light wind
conditions. How many times do you pick a field with that little
distance? I cleaned my brake regularly to keep it in good working
order.

I know own a flapped glider. Would I go back sure. However I like
25.5meters and anything under is just no fun.

So looking at the gliders that you listed. What fits your wallet? What
fits your body? What looks sexy (to you)? What finish is in good
condition (unless you like sanding and painting)? They are all good
gliders, if not they would be sitting on the market cheap...but there
is not much sitting on the market, and it is not cheap.

On the trailer topic. Nimbus 3 in Pfieffer trailer vs last generation
Cobra trailer....time difference to rig is about 3min. You could get
rid of that with a trailer ramp jack.

[Greg Arnold]

g l i d e r s t u d wrote:
> I am not convinced that a flapped glider will land in a much smaller
> field than non flapped glider. I owned a Discus2, and I landed it
> out...more times than I would like to discuss in this forum. I am not
> going to go into field landing techniques, but I could land very low
> energy, nose high, and stop in amazingly short fields, without hitting
> the nose on the ground. When taking the glider to the hanger I would
> touchdown before the beginning of the hanger and pull around the
> corner. total rolling distance is under 130ft in light wind
> conditions.

Are you sure about that? The Road & Track Road Test Summary shows that
130' is the typical emergency stopping distance of most cars from 60 mph
(52 knots).

The Porsche Carrera GT, for example, stops in 124'. I would like to see
you stop that D2 as quickly as a Porsche!



How many times do you pick a field with that little
> distance? I cleaned my brake regularly to keep it in good working
> order.
>
> I know own a flapped glider. Would I go back sure. However I like
> 25.5meters and anything under is just no fun.
>
> So looking at the gliders that you listed. What fits your wallet? What
> fits your body? What looks sexy (to you)? What finish is in good
> condition (unless you like sanding and painting)? They are all good
> gliders, if not they would be sitting on the market cheap...but there
> is not much sitting on the market, and it is not cheap.
>
> On the trailer topic. Nimbus 3 in Pfieffer trailer vs last generation
> Cobra trailer....time difference to rig is about 3min. You could get
> rid of that with a trailer ramp jack.

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

g l i d e r s t u d wrote:
> I am not convinced that a flapped glider will land in a much smaller
> field than non flapped glider. I owned a Discus2, and I landed it
> out...more times than I would like to discuss in this forum. I am not
> going to go into field landing techniques, but I could land very low
> energy, nose high, and stop in amazingly short fields, without hitting
> the nose on the ground. When taking the glider to the hanger I would
> touchdown before the beginning of the hanger and pull around the
> corner. total rolling distance is under 130ft in light wind
> conditions. How many times do you pick a field with that little
> distance? I cleaned my brake regularly to keep it in good working
> order.

In my experience, the big advantage of certain flapped gliders (those
with 40+ degree landing position, or incorporating trailing edge dive
brakes like the Ventus A/B) isn't the reduction in stopping distance.
It's the fact that I can make very steep approaches into short
obstructed fields without a significant increase in airspeed. This
allows taking full advantage of whatever stopping distance is available.
Non-flapped gliders require a shallower approach, which is a problem
if there are wires, trees, or a hillside in the way...

Marc

[Brad[_2_]]

Hi Marc,

Your DG-600 had flaperons, as does my Apis...............they go down
only 12 degrees, great for thermalling, but not so great for steep
approaches. So when we are talking about flapped gliders, do gliders
with un-mixed flaperons count when the topic of steep approaches is
discussed?

Cheers,
Brad


On Apr 17, 7:08*pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
> g l i d e r s t u d wrote:
>
> > I am not convinced that a flapped glider will land in a much smaller
> > field than non flapped glider. I owned a Discus2, and I landed it
> > out...more times than I would like to discuss in this forum. I am not
> > going to go into field landing techniques, but I could land very low
> > energy, nose high, and stop in amazingly short fields, without hitting
> > the nose on the ground. When taking the glider to the hanger I would
> > touchdown before the beginning of the hanger and pull around the
> > corner. total rolling distance is under 130ft in light wind
> > conditions. How many times do you pick a field with that little
> > distance? I cleaned my brake regularly to keep it in good working
> > order.
>
> In my experience, the big advantage of certain flapped gliders (those
> with 40+ degree landing position, or incorporating trailing edge dive
> brakes like the Ventus A/B) isn't the reduction in stopping distance.
> It's the fact that I can make very steep approaches into short
> obstructed fields without a significant increase in airspeed. *This
> allows taking full advantage of whatever stopping distance is available.
> * Non-flapped gliders require a shallower approach, which is a problem
> if there are wires, trees, or a hillside in the way...
>
> Marc

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Brad wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> Your DG-600 had flaperons, as does my Apis...............they go down
> only 12 degrees, great for thermalling, but not so great for steep
> approaches. So when we are talking about flapped gliders, do gliders
> with un-mixed flaperons count when the topic of steep approaches is
> discussed?

No, that's why I mentioned 40+ degrees. The trailing edge flap/brakes
on my Ventus B and the 40 degree flaps on my ASW-20B made short
obstructed fields seem easy. The 600 and LAK-17A were little better
than standard class ships in that area, however, both kicked into warp
in negative flap...

Marc

> On Apr 17, 7:08 pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>> g l i d e r s t u d wrote:
>>
>>> I am not convinced that a flapped glider will land in a much smaller
>>> field than non flapped glider. I owned a Discus2, and I landed it
>>> out...more times than I would like to discuss in this forum. I am not
>>> going to go into field landing techniques, but I could land very low
>>> energy, nose high, and stop in amazingly short fields, without hitting
>>> the nose on the ground. When taking the glider to the hanger I would
>>> touchdown before the beginning of the hanger and pull around the
>>> corner. total rolling distance is under 130ft in light wind
>>> conditions. How many times do you pick a field with that little
>>> distance? I cleaned my brake regularly to keep it in good working
>>> order.
>> In my experience, the big advantage of certain flapped gliders (those
>> with 40+ degree landing position, or incorporating trailing edge dive
>> brakes like the Ventus A/B) isn't the reduction in stopping distance.
>> It's the fact that I can make very steep approaches into short
>> obstructed fields without a significant increase in airspeed. This
>> allows taking full advantage of whatever stopping distance is available.
>> Non-flapped gliders require a shallower approach, which is a problem
>> if there are wires, trees, or a hillside in the way...
>>
>> Marc
>

[g l i d e r s t u d]

Marc in a feild landing you would touch down at 60mph?

I would NOT touch down at 60mph (I must have had one of those special
unflapped gliders that stalled less than 60)? I did say low energy and
nose high. Im not a math guy but isnt energy=velocity squared?

Sadly my Discus 2 went to FL so I cant show you.....maybe it was the
Maughmer winglets.... Now I am stuck with my big heavy glider that has
flaps.

[Greg Arnold]

g l i d e r s t u d wrote:
> Marc in a feild landing you would touch down at 60mph?
>
> I would NOT touch down at 60mph (I must have had one of those special
> unflapped gliders that stalled less than 60)? I did say low energy and
> nose high. Im not a math guy but isnt energy=velocity squared?
>
> Sadly my Discus 2 went to FL so I cant show you.....maybe it was the
> Maughmer winglets.... Now I am stuck with my big heavy glider that has
> flaps.

What speed do you land at in order to stop in 130 feet?

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

g l i d e r s t u d wrote:
> Marc in a feild landing you would touch down at 60mph?
>
> I would NOT touch down at 60mph (I must have had one of those special
> unflapped gliders that stalled less than 60)? I did say low energy and
> nose high. Im not a math guy but isnt energy=velocity squared?
>
> Sadly my Discus 2 went to FL so I cant show you.....maybe it was the
> Maughmer winglets.... Now I am stuck with my big heavy glider that has
> flaps.

My point was simply that 40 degree flaps or trailing edge dive brakes
produce a tremendous amount of drag, more than spoilers will. Enough
drag that you'll barely accelerate with the nose down 30 or even 40
degrees. Try that coming over our tall western trees with most standard
class gliders and you'll float halfway down a 400 ft patch before you
bleed off enough speed to make that nice low energy landing.

And, yes, I often touch down at over 60 mph (TAS). At a 6000 to 8000
foot density altitude in mountainous terrain, you know perfectly well
you shouldn't be going much slower. Now, your present glider obviously
doesn't have the benefit of nice draggy landing flaps. Try a 27, 20,
Ventus A/B, HP, etc., if you want to experience the real thing...

Marc

[Bob Whelan[_2_]]

Greg Arnold wrote:
> g l i d e r s t u d wrote:
>> Marc in a feild landing you would touch down at 60mph?
>>
>> I would NOT touch down at 60mph (I must have had one of those special
>> unflapped gliders that stalled less than 60)? I did say low energy and
>> nose high. Im not a math guy but isnt energy=velocity squared?
>>
<Snip>
>
> What speed do you land at in order to stop in 130 feet?

For short, obstructed-approach, field-landings, you can't have too much
disposable drag. The shortest non-abbie-normal landing I ever witnessed
was from the cockpit of my HP-14, on an unpaved, alluvial-fan airfield,
in a <5-knot breeze, at 5300' msl. After nailing the approach (easy to
do with high drag) and a tail-first flare, I paced off the main-wheel
roll at 3 fuselage lengths...accomplished w/o nose-dragging braking.

I have no idea what actual touchdown speed was, though the last part of
final was flown at 40 knots indicated (utterly benign conditions, and,
well above indicated stall speed). Point being, lots of drag and lift
can't be beat for steep, slow approaches, and short landing rolls.
Personally, I find high-drag ships much easier to consistently land than
low-drag ones.

Regards,
Bob W.

P.S. Kinetic Energy = 1/2*Mass*(Velocity*Velocity), so touchdown energy
is proportional to velocity squared. Your wheel brake knows only
velocity-squared in energy dissipation terms (though aerodynamic drag is
its friend early-on in the landing roll).

[noel.wade]

*sigh*

Well, its all turned out to be moot:

The DG-202 is too far away for me to go look at it this week, and the
DG-300 sold. :-(

--Noel

[Larry[_4_]]

On 2008-04-19 20:12:21 -0400, "noel.wade" > said:

> *sigh*
>
> Well, its all turned out to be moot:
>
> The DG-202 is too far away for me to go look at it this week, and the
> DG-300 sold. :-(
>
> --Noel

There's a DG-200 listed for sale on wingsandwheels.com

[noel.wade]

>
> There's a DG-200 listed for sale on wingsandwheels.com

And I'm not interested in it. The DG-200 is a fine machine; but it
doesn't have the automatic hookups that a DG-300 has, and it doesn't
have a one-piece canopy like a 202 or 300. Finally, the price isn't
that different from the going rate for an ASW-20, and the ASW has
somewhat higher performance than the 200.

Thanks, though,

--Noel

[Greg Arnold]

noel.wade wrote:
>> There's a DG-200 listed for sale on wingsandwheels.com
>
> And I'm not interested in it. The DG-200 is a fine machine; but it
> doesn't have the automatic hookups that a DG-300 has, and it doesn't
> have a one-piece canopy like a 202 or 300. Finally, the price isn't
> that different from the going rate for an ASW-20, and the ASW has
> somewhat higher performance than the 200.

But not enough to notice unless you are a top racing pilot.

>
> Thanks, though,
>
> --Noel

[noel.wade]

On Apr 19, 9:44 pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> But not enough to notice unless you are a top racing pilot.
>

Its not just about what one pilot would notice. Its about market
effects and perception. The DG-200 is not perceived by the market as
being desireable at the same level as the DG-300 or an ASW-20.

I'm looking at this from the standpoint of safety, market-value,
resale speed, trailer quality, finish quality, age of manufacture -
all in addition to pure performance.

I am incredibly thorough in my research about gliders (some might say
I'm obsessed) - and the DG-300 and ASW-20 floated to the top for a
variety of reasons. Some of which are mainstream reasons, and some of
which are personal preferences.

Now if only I'd win the lottery so I could just buy a brand new
glider... *grin*

--Noel

[Andy[_1_]]

On Apr 18, 12:32*am, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>*Try that coming over our tall western trees with most standard
> class gliders and you'll float halfway down a 400 ft patch before you
> bleed off enough speed to make that nice low energy landing.

Flaps are good for short landings but it's also possible to get high
drag steep approaches with a Standard class glider. My ASW28, and the
ASW19B I used to fly, have a very high sink rate in a full rudder slip
and the speed is easily controlled if the pilot maintains
proficiency. The hard part in practicing the full rudder slip is
getting high enough on final to be able to maintain a stable slip
without undershooting.

Please try your first full rudder slips in Standard glass at high
altitude. If you are not proficient, the rapid loss of altitude can
be quite alarming. All gliders may not be as benign as the 19 and 28
in full rudder slip. Also do not be surprised if the airspeed
indicates zero as it will with some pitot systems. Ignor the ASI and
just keep the pitch attitude the same as before slip entry.

Andy

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Andy wrote:
> On Apr 18, 12:32 am, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>> Try that coming over our tall western trees with most standard
>> class gliders and you'll float halfway down a 400 ft patch before you
>> bleed off enough speed to make that nice low energy landing.
>
> Flaps are good for short landings but it's also possible to get high
> drag steep approaches with a Standard class glider. My ASW28, and the
> ASW19B I used to fly, have a very high sink rate in a full rudder slip
> and the speed is easily controlled if the pilot maintains
> proficiency. The hard part in practicing the full rudder slip is
> getting high enough on final to be able to maintain a stable slip
> without undershooting.

Been there, done that, in both standard class ships and Duos. It's a
whole lot easier to come down steep with decent flaps. Just shove the
stick forward, pull on full flaps, and point the nose at where you want
to touch down...

Marc

[Geoff Vincent]

You make it sound easy Marc, but try that in a cross wind (slipping to
maintain correct heading) and you will find an undershoot situation
rushes up really quickly! I have over 1400 hrs up in PIK 20Bs and am
still learning the fine balance between flap settings and slipping on
finals. Remember, it's generally better to land long than short.

Regards,

Geoff Vincent

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:50:02 GMT, Marc Ramsey >
wrote:

>Andy wrote:
>> On Apr 18, 12:32 am, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>>> Try that coming over our tall western trees with most standard
>>> class gliders and you'll float halfway down a 400 ft patch before you
>>> bleed off enough speed to make that nice low energy landing.
>>
>> Flaps are good for short landings but it's also possible to get high
>> drag steep approaches with a Standard class glider. My ASW28, and the
>> ASW19B I used to fly, have a very high sink rate in a full rudder slip
>> and the speed is easily controlled if the pilot maintains
>> proficiency. The hard part in practicing the full rudder slip is
>> getting high enough on final to be able to maintain a stable slip
>> without undershooting.
>
>Been there, done that, in both standard class ships and Duos. It's a
>whole lot easier to come down steep with decent flaps. Just shove the
>stick forward, pull on full flaps, and point the nose at where you want
>to touch down...
>
>Marc

[Eric Greenwell]

> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:50:02 GMT, Marc Ramsey >
> wrote:
>
>> Andy wrote:
>>> On Apr 18, 12:32 am, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>>>> Try that coming over our tall western trees with most standard
>>>> class gliders and you'll float halfway down a 400 ft patch
>>>> before you bleed off enough speed to make that nice low energy
>>>> landing.
>>> Flaps are good for short landings but it's also possible to get
>>> high drag steep approaches with a Standard class glider. My
>>> ASW28, and the ASW19B I used to fly, have a very high sink rate
>>> in a full rudder slip and the speed is easily controlled if the
>>> pilot maintains proficiency. The hard part in practicing the
>>> full rudder slip is getting high enough on final to be able to
>>> maintain a stable slip without undershooting.
>> Been there, done that, in both standard class ships and Duos. It's
>> a whole lot easier to come down steep with decent flaps. Just
>> shove the stick forward, pull on full flaps, and point the nose at
>> where you want to touch down...

Geoff Vincent wrote:
> You make it sound easy Marc, but try that in a cross wind (slipping
> to maintain correct heading) and you will find an undershoot
> situation rushes up really quickly! I have over 1400 hrs up in PIK
> 20Bs and am still learning the fine balance between flap settings and
> slipping on finals. Remember, it's generally better to land long than
> short.

What makes it easy in the ASW 20 is you also have spoilers, which allow
you to easily adjust the glideslope without changing the flaps.

--
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