The ravages of time? [Archive]

noel.wade

June 17th 08, 05:36 AM

OK All,

So I've been 'round and 'round trying to figure out the right glider
to buy (all year). I'm sure you all are getting tired of me by now! :-
P

But I have a related question for you (for once that does not involve
a "Which glider is better" question):

How detrimental to performance are the effects of time on a glider?
I'm talking about things like roughened gelcoat, flat-spots on the
wing-skin by the spar-caps, etc. Do you think they affect flapped
gliders any differently than standard-class gliders?

(In case it makes a difference, I'm specifically concerned about 20
year old aircraft manufactured in the mid-to-late-80's)

Also, every time I get close to buying a glider of this vintage, I
start considering the fact that it will be the biggest purchase by far
in my life at this point - and seeing aging gelcoat, surface corrosion
on metal bits, worn-out cockpit interiors, etc makes me get cold
feet. Am I just being a wuss and overreacting? I'm usually not one
to dwell on appearances - but the sheer dollar amounts, and the fact
that skin-friction-drag is important, make me jumpy with gliders....

Any thoughts?

Thanks, take care,

--Noel
P.S. For the record, I found a late-90's SZD-55 in great shape that I
would have bought, but I am just a bit too tall to fit comfortably...
Argh!

Paul Cordell

June 17th 08, 07:02 AM

Argh!

Do you think they affect flapped
gliders any differently than standard-class gliders?

NO – They are all built with the same techniques.

seeing aging gelcoat,

The nicer the finish, the more $$ you'll have to pay.

surface corrosion on metal bits

This should be to a minimum, but realize that any thing more than a
few days out of the factory will have some chipped paint.

worn-out cockpit interiors,

if it’s not new, the interior will be scuffed. Parachute buckles
make all kinds of marks. An interior is easy to fix, it’s purely
cosmetic and does not affect the performance of the sailplane.

You have missed the most important factor in the equation. That’s
the pilots ability to make the sailplane perform. I will guarantee
you that you will not notice a 10% difference in a “old” sailplane vs
the exact same model factory new. Your piloting skills will mask any
difference. One extra turn at the top of the thermal, a slightly
poor choice of track, flying to slow or to fast at any given moment
or even taking to many thermals will affect your ultimate XC ability
by 50% or more. Relax on the details, any of the models that you
have considered are good. The entire package is more important than
the specifics. A functional trailer, good working instruments that
you understand and a dependable electrical system in any sailplane you
fly will do.

The point is to get out and fly. Last weekend at Ephrata is a good
example. Even if you didn’t bring your own ship out, the soaring was
exceptional. 3 club ships were tied down and unused all weekend.
What a waste. I flew almost 12 hours in 2 days. Saturday had nice
thermals with wave over the Cu to 18,000 feet. Sunday’s cloudbase
was around 12,000 feet with almost everybody doing 500 km and some
well over 600 km. A low time pilot is always the weak point in the
equation. Maybe you should spend less money on the fiberglass and
more on your training. Buy a ride with Karl Striedeck at any of the
contest he flies. Doug Jacobs also offers rides. Gavin Wills gives
great XC instruction in the west. There are many choices and they
are all good.

nimbusgb

June 17th 08, 07:28 AM

On 17 Jun, 05:36, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> OK All,
>
> So I've been 'round and 'round trying to figure out the right glider
> to buy (all year). I'm sure you all are getting tired of me by now! :-
> P
>
> But I have a related question for you (for once that does not involve
> a "Which glider is better" question):
>
> How detrimental to performance are the effects of time on a glider?
> I'm talking about things like roughened gelcoat, flat-spots on the
> wing-skin by the spar-caps, etc. Do you think they affect flapped
> gliders any differently than standard-class gliders?
>
> (In case it makes a difference, I'm specifically concerned about 20
> year old aircraft manufactured in the mid-to-late-80's)
>
> Also, every time I get close to buying a glider of this vintage, I
> start considering the fact that it will be the biggest purchase by far
> in my life at this point - and seeing aging gelcoat, surface corrosion
> on metal bits, worn-out cockpit interiors, etc makes me get cold
> feet. Am I just being a wuss and overreacting? I'm usually not one
> to dwell on appearances - but the sheer dollar amounts, and the fact
> that skin-friction-drag is important, make me jumpy with gliders....
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks, take care,
>
> --Noel
> P.S. For the record, I found a late-90's SZD-55 in great shape that I
> would have bought, but I am just a bit too tall to fit comfortably...
> Argh!

If you are buying a 20+ year old aircraft you are not doing so because
you want the leading edge of performance and you are not going to
enter an un-handicapped competition with any realistic expectation of
finishing first. With that in mind a bit of parasitic drag from a
slightly off peak finish is not really significant.

Sure you can convince yourself at 300' turning finals into some
farmers field that it's the aircraft that's at fault rather than the
nut behind the stick. Once back at home you analyse the flight and
work out where you blew it, chalk it up to experience and do a bit
better next time.

Some aircraft, not all, suffer from spar cap shrinkage, its ugly but
it really hardly affects the weekend pilot. The gelcoat on some ships
deteriorates quicker on some ships than others. That having been said
it doesn't even seem to be really consistent between ships from the
same manufacturer and year. Use a cracking gelcoat as a strong
bargaining chip when purchasing.

Just think a ship with a 'worn out' cockpit has had people in it and
has been flying for a long time, surely that's a good thing. Theres
good wear and tear and there's abuse. You can tell the difference.
Thousands of flight hours attest to a faithfull and usefull tool.
Provided that the control systems and the 'fit of the bits' is not
sloppy then there is no reason why a 20 or 30 or even older year old
ship should not perform within 5% of the day it came out of the
factory. Refurbishing a cockpit and upgrading the instruments is not
that expensive and is very rewarding!

Composite structures are good for well in excess of 12000 hours.
Buying a ship with 3000 hours on it leaves you with enough time to fly
200 hours a year ( that's a good whack for a recreational pilot ) for
the next 15 years and still only be 1/2 way through the 12000!

I have refurbished several older ships after having bought them
( LS1d, Libelle, Ventus bt, Nimbus 3t) and I have been happy every
time.

Ian

jb92563

June 17th 08, 03:58 PM

You really have to decide on your desires and flying habits to make
the right choice for you.

If you are buying a racing plane then you look for best L/D at higher
speeds and something you can be comfortable in for long flights and
turbulence with a chute on and finish will be important.

That implies that youwant the Gelcoat is in great shape as age does
tend to take its toll on that and fixing it is very expensive.

If you just like soaring around then top notch performance is not
critical and you can tolerate an older less perfect wing surface and
you would probably be looking for best Min sink figures as opposed to
best L/D in that case.

If you dont like rigging and want to leave the plane tied out then you
need a metal plane like a Schreder HP which can be left out in the
elements all season long.

The thing with the surface is the Laminar flow airfoils on modern
gliders....smooth is better.

I would say the most important single thing is comfort as the goal is
to stay up and have fun flying all day, likely, especially since tows
are getting rather expensive with the rising fuel prices.

In the end you have to decide for yourself what is most important, but
yes, older surfaces have a slightly negative effect on the
performance, not that you would ever notice it though.

My 2 cents,

Ray

On Jun 16, 9:36*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> OK All,
>
> So I've been 'round and 'round trying to figure out the right glider
> to buy (all year). *I'm sure you all are getting tired of me by now! :-
> P
>
> But I have a related question for you (for once that does not involve
> a "Which glider is better" question):
>
> How detrimental to performance are the effects of time on a glider?
> I'm talking about things like roughened gelcoat, flat-spots on the
> wing-skin by the spar-caps, etc. *Do you think they affect flapped
> gliders any differently than standard-class gliders?
>
> (In case it makes a difference, I'm specifically concerned about 20
> year old aircraft manufactured in the mid-to-late-80's)
>
> Also, every time I get close to buying a glider of this vintage, I
> start considering the fact that it will be the biggest purchase by far
> in my life at this point - and seeing aging gelcoat, surface corrosion
> on metal bits, worn-out cockpit interiors, etc makes me get cold
> feet. *Am I just being a wuss and overreacting? *I'm usually not one
> to dwell on appearances - but the sheer dollar amounts, and the fact
> that skin-friction-drag is important, make me jumpy with gliders....
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks, take care,
>
> --Noel
> P.S. *For the record, I found a late-90's SZD-55 in great shape that I
> would have bought, but I am just a bit too tall to fit comfortably...
> Argh!

Bob Whelan[_2_]

June 17th 08, 04:16 PM

noel.wade wrote:
> OK All,
>
<Snip...>
>
> How detrimental to performance are the effects of time on a glider?
How high is up?

> I'm talking about things like roughened gelcoat, flat-spots on the
> wing-skin by the spar-caps, etc.
What others have already said...

A quote attributed to Dick Johnson: "Air has fingers but no eyes." Of
*course* surface finish affects air flow, both theoretically and
practically...but whether Joe Pilot actually can detect it is why God
invented beer and fellow pilots.
- - - - - -

> Do you think they affect flapped
> gliders any differently than standard-class gliders?
>
<Snip...>
>
> Also, every time I get close to buying a glider of this vintage, I
> start considering the fact that it will be the biggest purchase by far
> in my life at this point - and seeing aging gelcoat, surface corrosion
> on metal bits, worn-out cockpit interiors, etc makes me get cold
> feet. Am I just being a wuss and overreacting?

Step back and juxtapose your first question immediately above with your
'overreacting' question and ponder the twain with reflective humor.

As for life-threatening airflow changes due to age-related surface
changes, according to the FAA, frost on wings kills, while according to
the NTSB, takeoffs in DC-9's with retracted slats does too. Yet
airplanes routinely fly with ice on their wings, and with retracted
slats AND flaps. Magic?

Regarding age-related composite woes, how many examples of composite
gliders can anyone point to that came apart because their fiber/resin
matrix got tired?

Continuing the ponderation of age-related woes, how many metal bits in
airplanes and gliders have gotten tired due to age? (Correct answer:
lots more than f/r matrices. The good news is, metal bits
are [on sailplanes] generally straightforwardly visually inspectable.)
- - - - - -

I'm usually not one[i]
> to dwell on appearances - but the sheer dollar amounts, and the fact
> that skin-friction-drag is important, make me jumpy with gliders....
>
> Any thoughts?

There are older (in time) composite gliders than the one I've been
flying since 1981 (and which was built in 1977), and many of them
probably look much better than mine does today, simply because I'm one
who figures looks on a sailplane do about as much good as an appendix.
(Hey...the philosophy works for me. My priorities tend to be:
structural integrity; superbly functioning netto, 'other stuff'...)

There is no such thing (IMHO) as the perfect sailplane...or anything
else, for that matter. Perfection is not an option. Perfection is -
however - the enemy of good enough. Know yourself, make your best
attempt to understand how you expect/hope to be expanding your soaring
skills in the next few years, don't allow your fantasies of 'setting the
soaring world afire' to overwhelm the realities of where you are on
soaring's infinite learning palette, purchase accordingly and you'll
have years of rewarding soaring flight in your immediate future!

Respectfully,
Bob W.

[email protected]

June 17th 08, 04:23 PM

Condition matters, but it's usually more an economic factor than
performance. Removing/refinishing bad gel coat costs much more than
you will likely get from the glider when you sell it. It's better to
buy a glider with gel coat that will last for a while. Upgrading
instruments can be expensive, depending on how far you want to go.
Trailers deteriorate, too, with some known for having weak points
(e.g., late 70s Komets where the axle attachment points fail and the
axle pushes the floor up) though those problems can usually be fixed
with a modest expenditure of time and/or money.

Some glider finishes do seem to deteriorate faster than others but
you'll already be able to see what's good and what's not in a glider
that's 20 years old. Some will have been refinished once. Some may
have done better than others: e.g., those with a painted finish (e.g.,
PIK 20) and DG.

As concerns performance, some gliders do suffer more than others from
airfoil inaccuracies: the section used on the PIK 20/Mosquito/Nimbus 2/
LS-3 and others is an example. The LS-3 (which I owned) develops flat
spots where the spar cap shrinks; if not filled, the high-speed cruise
is affected though the climb is still good. The wing on the ASW 24
(which I own now; not on your final list, I know, but a superb value),
on the other hand, seems absolutely timeless regarding waviness.

Regarding pilot height, the parachute and torso/leg length ratio can
have an enormous influence. I'm 6'3" (191 cm) with, apparently, a
relatively long torso. I need a chute that's very thin behind the
shoulders so I can recline as far as possible. Most chutes are
constant thickness. Before you cross off a glider from your list, try
different parachutes first. Try to borrow a Softie Wedge or Strong
backpack, and I think National now makes a similar one that's thin at
the top.

Don't get obsessed with performance. As others have said, piloting
counts for a lot more. Buying a sailplane IS a major investment so
approach it that way: think "value" and resale and you'll be fine.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

[email protected]

June 17th 08, 05:00 PM

Don't believe all that crap you read above. You're being a WUSS.
Gliders are like women. You fall in love with it from the outside in.
Mortgage everything to get that special one. So you work at Taco Bell
(at night) to make up the difference. Not since Wilbur first flew has
anyone ever said "I should have waited to buy my first glider" and
everyone regrets not buying sooner.
Welcome to the club, "sweetie".
R

noel.wade

June 17th 08, 11:22 PM

On Jun 17, 9:00*am, " > wrote:

> anyone ever said "I should have waited to buy my first glider" and
> everyone regrets not buying sooner.
> Welcome to the club, "sweetie".
> R

R -

Too late, I already bought my first glider a year ago. She's a bit
ugly, but I've ridden her hard and she rides well (Russia AC-4). Did
165km on Sunday in 2-4 knot lift, below 4000 ft most of the day... not
bad for stubby wings and only flying gliders for a year, if I do say
so myself... :-)

BTW, I've *never* seen an ASW-24 come up for sale online in the nearly
2 years I've been on the market... They must be good; but they're
hard to find!

The issue with the performance is that I feel like I'm already
outgrowing my Russia after just a year of flying it - and I'd hate to
feel that way about a standard-class ship after a couple of years
(whereas a flapped ship will have a steeper learning curve which - as
a twisted wierdo obsessed pilot - I like).

But the tide of opinion here and in my club is carrying me along
towards buying the less-expensive glider with the better finish and
known resale value - even if its unflapped and has a higher (i.e.
worse) handicap... I'm not a racer, I just want to feel like I'm
maximizing the day's opportunities and make some decent distances in
our relatively weak conditions here in Seattle. I'll fly in the
desert a few times a year; but I started out thinking that ergonomics,
safety, and maneuverability are the important factors - and it seems
that I'm being guided back around to that mode of thinking by all of
you. Ya gotta admit, though, performance is a seductive mistress!

And now that people know the glider I want is for sale, I'd better
hustle! :-P

--Noel

[email protected]

June 17th 08, 11:49 PM

Noel, its better than a mistress. For once you'll feel like a
millionaire. Not wishing, but doing. Hell, you'll probably do a 1000K
the first week. The thermals are all stronger, you'll fly like
superman, and the women will flock to see the new Ace. I'm not sure
which way you swing, but if you have a wife, she'll appear 20 years
younger and worship the ground you walk. And if you get real good,
she'll let you go to contest, "alone", like all the big boys are
doing now. If you can fly that Russia lawn dart 185km, you're
practically world champion already.
And Noel, don't buy a flapped ship, you'll just get the handles mixed
up and clip some trees.
R

Nyal Williams[_2_]

June 18th 08, 03:28 AM

Don't concern yourself with flaps. You have lots to learn about weather,
strategy, finesse, subtlety. Lots of top pilots fly standard class. A
good, used standard class machine will help you learn, allow you to make
mistakes, dings, and scratches, and after you have spent five years with
it you might be ready to get something shiny and new. That way you will
be less likely to scratch it up.

At 22:22 17 June 2008, noel.wade wrote:
>On Jun 17, 9:00=A0am, " wrote:
>
>> anyone ever said "I should have waited to buy my first glider" and
>> everyone regrets not buying sooner.
>> Welcome to the club, "sweetie".
>> R
>
>R -
>
>Too late, I already bought my first glider a year ago. She's a bit
>ugly, but I've ridden her hard and she rides well (Russia AC-4). Did
>165km on Sunday in 2-4 knot lift, below 4000 ft most of the day... not
>bad for stubby wings and only flying gliders for a year, if I do say
>so myself... :-)
>
>BTW, I've *never* seen an ASW-24 come up for sale online in the nearly
>2 years I've been on the market... They must be good; but they're
>hard to find!
>
>The issue with the performance is that I feel like I'm already
>outgrowing my Russia after just a year of flying it - and I'd hate to
>feel that way about a standard-class ship after a couple of years
>(whereas a flapped ship will have a steeper learning curve which - as
>a twisted wierdo obsessed pilot - I like).
>
>But the tide of opinion here and in my club is carrying me along
>towards buying the less-expensive glider with the better finish and
>known resale value - even if its unflapped and has a higher (i.e.
>worse) handicap... I'm not a racer, I just want to feel like I'm
>maximizing the day's opportunities and make some decent distances in
>our relatively weak conditions here in Seattle. I'll fly in the
>desert a few times a year; but I started out thinking that ergonomics,
>safety, and maneuverability are the important factors - and it seems
>that I'm being guided back around to that mode of thinking by all of
>you. Ya gotta admit, though, performance is a seductive mistress!
>
>And now that people know the glider I want is for sale, I'd better
>hustle! :-P
>
>--Noel
>
>

noel.wade

June 18th 08, 07:19 AM

On Jun 17, 7:28*pm, Nyal Williams > wrote:
> Don't concern yourself with flaps. *You have lots to learn about weather,
> strategy, finesse, subtlety. *

Thanks Nyal, I appreciate the info.

Having said that:

I know folks mean well, but really if I was in need of learning that
stuff, I wouldn't be having such a hard time making a decision!

The fact is that I've owned a Russia AC-4 for a year. With a 30:1
glider you _do_ learn to scratch and make low saves, trust me! The
40:1 performance may not be there, but you learn the same lessons as
you would in a standard-class ship.

And in the last year, I've become one of our main local weather gurus
(not saying a whole lot, given how unpredictable weather is in Seattle
- but I get it right more often than I get it wrong). I've taken
college-level meteorology courses, and given weather forecasting
presentations to local pilots.

On top of that, I flew R/C gliders for a few years before I got into
the "real thing", so I learned a lot of this stuff before I even
climbed into the cockpit. Furthermore, I got my SEL private pilot's
license before I got into gliding, so I was already competent when it
came to basic air-work. I almost went into aerospace engineering in
college, before dropping out to do computer-stuff; so I have a pretty
good understanding of aerodynamics and the physical processes acting
on the aircraft throughout the different phases of flight and
different weather phenomena.

On top of that I'm a 30 year old bachelor, and although I work long
hours, my main focus outside of my day-job *is* flying. So BELIEVE me
when I say that I *obsess* about this sport!!!! I do a ton of
research, education, and practice! As a small sample: I've read just
about every book published by both Wander and Knauff, multiple times.
I've studied every "Johnson report" ever published. I've read
Reichmann, Brigliadori, and others. I've gone through the King
Schools DVD training courses (for powered aircraft). I've got several
of the Sporty's training DVDs (including "Transition to Gliders"). I
own almost all of the glider movies published on DVD, and have watched
them all multiple times (both for enjoyment, and for strategy where
possible). I easily have 200+ hours in the Condor soaring simulator,
trying different X-C tactics and exploring the effects of wind and
weather over different terrain... Yes indeed, "obsess" is the right
word (someday soon I'll break away long enough to get a girlfriend
again... soon, I hope... ).

Its not that I'm trying to sound like a know-it-all. I *know* there
are still things for me to learn, and my skills will get better with a
lot of refining, and that I'm nowhere near as good as the guys (and
gals) that have been doing this for 10 or 20 (or more) years. They
regularly spank me, sure! At the airfield I am respectful, ask lots
of questions, and try to always learn something new.

But I'm a very fast learner - it was this way with auto-racing, R/C
flying, and most of my hobbies growing up. I move through the basics
rapidly and then plateau at a medium level of skill. My first season
of auto-racing I placed 3rd in the season championship. I took my PPL
SEL checkride with only 48 hours logged, and the examiner thought I
would have passed the test at commercial-level standards. However,
with most of my hobbies I tend to get frustrated after reaching that
first big plateau - being unable to catch the wise & experienced
folks, and stuck solidly in the middle of the pack after early
successes. Soaring is the first sport / hobby that has held my
interest and that I desire to be involved in for the long-term, even
if it means putting in years of practice to improve in small
incremental ways!

The bottom line is that I've moved beyond the basics. Not to sound
like an egotistical jerk, but I think I'm flying at least as well as
any pilot in my local area that's begun gliding in the last 5 years.
And *that* is why I worry about whether a plane without flaps would be
boring after a couple of years. Will I feel like the flaps are the
one thing keeping me from achieving higher inter-thermal speeds and
really going on long X-C flights? Its the question that keeps me
awake at night (after my eyes are tired from reading Johnson and
Idaflieg data).

...However, you can all rest easy knowing that I found a ship and am
about to make an offer on it (as soon as the A&P tells me its good to
go).

Hopefully it will bring an end to these titanic essays of mine,
right?? :-P

Oh, and its a Standard-Class ship, for the curious (masochistic?) few
who are still reading... ;-)

Take care,

--Noel

Andreas Maurer

June 18th 08, 03:48 PM

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:19:25 -0700 (PDT), "noel.wade"
> wrote:

>The bottom line is that I've moved beyond the basics. Not to sound
>like an egotistical jerk, but I think I'm flying at least as well as
>any pilot in my local area that's begun gliding in the last 5 years.
>And *that* is why I worry about whether a plane without flaps would be
>boring after a couple of years. Will I feel like the flaps are the
>one thing keeping me from achieving higher inter-thermal speeds and
>really going on long X-C flights? Its the question that keeps me
>awake at night (after my eyes are tired from reading Johnson and
>Idaflieg data).

Hi Noel,

having read about all your phantastic skills, I have a very bad
message for you.

Unfortunately you are going to master all the fine points of flying a
flapped ship within four weeks. Since you already mastered all the XC
skills, too, there's nothing left to learn for you.

I'd strongly suggest to buy an EB-28, eta or Dick Butler's upcoming
Concordia... with gliders like that you have at least a few more
challenges, keeping gliding interesting for perhaps half a year
longer.

Bye
Andreas

noel.wade

June 18th 08, 04:56 PM

On Jun 18, 7:48*am, Andreas Maurer > wrote:

> Unfortunately you are going to master all the fine points of flying a
> flapped ship within four weeks. Since you already mastered all the XC
> skills, too, there's nothing left to learn for you.
>
> I'd strongly suggest to buy an EB-28, eta or Dick Butler's upcoming
> Concordia... with gliders like that you have at least a few more
> challenges, keeping gliding interesting for perhaps half a year
> longer.
>
> Bye
> Andreas

Yeah - sucks to be me, eh?

Honestly, I wouldn't buy one of those big-span gliders even if I had
the money - they make it too easy! Don't like the lift? Simply level
out and fly to the next state (or country, if you're in
Europe)... ;-)

--Noel
(Who would have loved to put his money where his mouth is by competing
in the Region 8 contest next week; but couldn't get the time off work
- argh!)

Chris Reed[_2_]

June 18th 08, 05:09 PM

noel.wade wrote:
> Will I feel like the flaps are the
> one thing keeping me from achieving higher inter-thermal speeds and
> really going on long X-C flights? Its the question that keeps me
> awake at night (after my eyes are tired from reading Johnson and
> Idaflieg data).
>
Flaps really aren't the issue as I understand it. I've heard reports of
research that suggests that on a day when thermal averages (that's
average for the whole climb, not peak readings on the vario) are below 4
kts, standard class gliders achieve as good inter-thermal speeds as
flapped gliders. Above 4kt averages, flaps show an advantage. From what
I recall of this thread, you're flying in an area which has not
dissimilar conditions to the UK where I fly - few if any days will give
consistent 4kt+ averages.

The two things which affect your XC ability in such conditions are:

1. L/D. In an AC4, you can't sample too many potential thermals before
the ground arrives. 40/1 plus gives you that ability. It should also
mean you need to stop less frequently to thermal, and thus achieve
higher speeds.

2. Polar curve. This, in my view is the biggest factor once your L/D is
high enough to make XC comparatively feasible (i.e. if the day is
soarable, you would expect to keep airborne and make progress unless you
screw up - to my mind this is 36+). I fly an Open Cirrus, which
definitely achieves 40+ L/D. However, the polar drops off steeply
compared to more modern designs, which means that as soon as I fly
faster than 50/55kt I burn off height rapidly. On a sub-4kt day, the
height losses in cruising at even 60kt are unlikely to be balanced by my
climbs, so I cruise at 50-55kt. This caps my XC speed, and there's
nothing I can do to increase it. Gliders with a flatter polar achieve
higher XC speeds than me because they can cruise at 65-70kt without
excessive height loss. On the other hand, I can beat them in really weak
weather (say, 3,000 ft cloudbase, 1-2 kt thermals). This doesn't mean I
can't manage XC flights, just that I can't manage them quickly. My next
aim is a 500k flight, and I'm reconciled to it taking me 8hrs in the UK
unless I hit a magic day.

I'd therefore suggest you look closely at the polar of any glider you're
thinking of buying, concentrating on the 60-80kt band. A good test might
be to work out the Macready 2 or 3 speed to fly - the higher that
number, the flatter the polar.

And of course, everything else in this thread is good advice to be taken
into account as well.

Greg Arnold[_2_]

June 18th 08, 06:49 PM

>
> The bottom line is that I've moved beyond the basics. Not to sound
> like an egotistical jerk, but I think I'm flying at least as well as
> any pilot in my local area that's begun gliding in the last 5 years.
> And *that* is why I worry about whether a plane without flaps would be
> boring after a couple of years. Will I feel like the flaps are the
> one thing keeping me from achieving higher inter-thermal speeds and
> really going on long X-C flights? Its the question that keeps me
> awake at night (after my eyes are tired from reading Johnson and
> Idaflieg data).
>

Flaps will make a 2% difference in speed. Your skill level will make a
50% difference. Work on developing your skills.

Greg Arnold[_2_]

June 18th 08, 07:14 PM

Greg Arnold wrote:
>
>>
>> The bottom line is that I've moved beyond the basics. Not to sound
>> like an egotistical jerk, but I think I'm flying at least as well as
>> any pilot in my local area that's begun gliding in the last 5 years.
>> And *that* is why I worry about whether a plane without flaps would be
>> boring after a couple of years. Will I feel like the flaps are the
>> one thing keeping me from achieving higher inter-thermal speeds and
>> really going on long X-C flights? Its the question that keeps me
>> awake at night (after my eyes are tired from reading Johnson and
>> Idaflieg data).
>>
>
> Flaps will make a 2% difference in speed. Your skill level will make a
> 50% difference. Work on developing your skills.
>
>

As an example of what can be done in an unflapped glider, look at
Thorsten Streppel's flight yesterday at Parowan:

http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?flightId=-1665049902

838 km at 117 km/hr in a classic Standard Cirrus. Of course, Thorsten
is a good pilot -- he is achieving most of that 50% difference due to
skill level.

noel.wade

June 18th 08, 07:28 PM

On Jun 18, 9:09*am, Chris Reed > wrote:

> I'd therefore suggest you look closely at the polar of any glider you're
> thinking of buying, concentrating on the 60-80kt band. A good test might
> be to work out the Macready 2 or 3 speed to fly - the higher that
> number, the flatter the polar.

Chris -

Thank you - someone who understands my point (struggle)! :-)

If you look at the Polars of most gliders, the difference between
flapped and unflapped performance starts showing up around 65 knots,
and the 60 - 80 knot range is where the flaps really differentiate
themselves from the standard-wing ships. This also just happens to be
the speed where my poor Russia's polar falls off a cliff. So I look
at the gains in a Std Class ship over my Russia, and then look at the
*additional* gains of flaps in that speed range, and my mouth waters
at the prospect. ;-)

BTW, we have an Open Cirrus at our field, and he does rather well in
weak conditions. We call it "The Whale" because it just kind of
lumbers along without sinking much, and he stretches out to sample
lots of air. :-)

Your point about being able to sample multiple thermals is *precisely*
the reason I want to upgrade: If I cruise 4 miles to a thermal and it
doesn't work, and I have to cruise 4 more miles (either back to my
starting spot or on to "Plan B"), the difference between a 40:1 ship
and my 30:1 Russia is about an 800 foot altitude difference at the
end. When you're starting at only 3000 - 4000 ft, that extra 800 ft
makes a BIG difference!!!

Its not that my skills are so awesome that I _need_ the performance
now - I just don't want to be limited by the glider after a couple of
years of practice. :-)

(The flatter polar is one reason why I was excited about an SZD-55 for
sale recently; but I didn't quite fit lengthwise - some oddity in my
torso-to-legs ratio at 6' 1" I guess...)

But like I said, I'm working on purchasing a Std Class ship (a
DG-300), so its all a moot point. I started out thinking that a
DG-300 was the way to go back at the beginning of this year, due to
its auto-hookups, visibility, ergonomics, and price-point. And after
all of this I've returned to the idea that those were the right things
to focus on in the first place (before I got sucked into the world of
performance numbers and flap madness)...

So now I'm off to set some records in the DG-300 (since folks say it
isn't competitive with its contemporaries, I need to prove them
wrong)! :-)

Take care,

--Noel

noel.wade

June 18th 08, 07:43 PM

On Jun 18, 11:14*am, Greg Arnold > wrote:

> 838 km at 117 km/hr in a classic Standard Cirrus. *Of course, Thorsten
> is a good pilot -- he is achieving most of that 50% difference due to
> skill level.

As a side-note:

While I have the utmost respect for Thorsten, I *hate* these kinds of
comments!

In good lift with high bases, everyone can go faster and further.
Claiming statistics from a single flight doesn't necessarily tell you
about the glider's limits - it just tells you what the glider and
pilot are capable of under a specific set of conditions in a specific
area.

Even with a fantastic pilot, a Std Cirrus in my local area is _not_
going to be capable of going 838km. And the added legs or lower sink-
rate of some newer gliders will make a marked performance difference
under most conditions (i.e. think what Thorsten could have done on
that day with an LS-8 or ASW-28 or Discus 2!!).

Simply claiming a distance and speed means nothing, unless you're
doing a true apples-to-apples comparison between gliders on the same
day in the same area. That's why most competitions are held over
multiple days from the same airfield...

Still pretty damn impressive what T did with that Std Cirrus!

Take care,

--Noel

Jim Beckman[_2_]

June 18th 08, 09:13 PM

At 14:48 18 June 2008, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
>Hi Noel,
>
>having read about all your phantastic skills, I have a very bad
>message for you.
>
>Unfortunately you are going to master all the fine points of flying a
>flapped ship within four weeks. Since you already mastered all the XC
>skills, too, there's nothing left to learn for you.
>
>I'd strongly suggest to buy an EB-28, eta or Dick Butler's upcoming
>Concordia... with gliders like that you have at least a few more
>challenges, keeping gliding interesting for perhaps half a year
>longer.

Then again, if what he really wants is a challenge, maybe he
should buy a 1-26 and find out if he *really* knows how to
fly cross country. Great competition ship, too. Real
mano-a-mano, no equipment differences.

Jim Beckman

noel.wade

June 18th 08, 09:24 PM

On Jun 18, 1:13*pm, Jim Beckman > wrote:

> Then again, if what he really wants is a challenge, maybe he
> should buy a 1-26 and find out if he *really* knows how to
> fly cross country. *Great competition ship, too. *Real
> mano-a-mano, no equipment differences.
>
> Jim Beckman

Jim -

If I wanted to do competition a lot, I would almost certainly do just
that! When I did auto-racing, it was almost always in inexpensive
"spec" classes where equipment was the same for all competitors.

Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to be doing many competitions, we
don't have other 1-26 pilots in the area, and with the low cloud-bases
and hilly/mountainous terrain around Seattle I just would not be able
to have long, "casual" XC flights in a 1-26. I already enjoy good-
length XC flights in the Russia, going slow but floating nicely in
weak lift and poking around the hills.

But the goal is to go further on those weak days, and with reduced
ground-clearance in the hills and mountains, a good glide-ratio is
important (to be able to fly down the drainages and river valleys back
to the home airport when things fall apart).

Someday I'll trip on out to the east where there's more flat-land
soaring and more 1-26 competition; and I'll try a 1-26 contest (and
probably get my butt handed to me, but have fun doing it).

Take care,

--Noel

Greg Arnold[_2_]

June 18th 08, 09:54 PM

noel.wade wrote:
> On Jun 18, 11:14 am, Greg Arnold > wrote:
>
>> 838 km at 117 km/hr in a classic Standard Cirrus. Of course, Thorsten
>> is a good pilot -- he is achieving most of that 50% difference due to
>> skill level.
>
> As a side-note:
>
> While I have the utmost respect for Thorsten, I *hate* these kinds of
> comments!
>
> In good lift with high bases, everyone can go faster and further.
> Claiming statistics from a single flight doesn't necessarily tell you
> about the glider's limits - it just tells you what the glider and
> pilot are capable of under a specific set of conditions in a specific
> area.
>
> Even with a fantastic pilot, a Std Cirrus in my local area is _not_
> going to be capable of going 838km. And the added legs or lower sink-
> rate of some newer gliders will make a marked performance difference
> under most conditions (i.e. think what Thorsten could have done on
> that day with an LS-8 or ASW-28 or Discus 2!!).

It is hard to argue with you, since you keep shifting the goal posts.
And do you notice that the other gliders you cite lack flaps?

>
> Simply claiming a distance and speed means nothing, unless you're
> doing a true apples-to-apples comparison between gliders on the same
> day in the same area. That's why most competitions are held over
> multiple days from the same airfield...

Yes, and compare Thorsten's performance with that of the other flights
at Parowan yesterday. Pretty good in comparison to the flapped ships,
don't you think?

The point is that it is pilot skill, not flaps, that is the relevant factor.

>
> Still pretty damn impressive what T did with that Std Cirrus!
>
> Take care,
>
> --Noel
>

noel.wade

June 18th 08, 11:25 PM

On Jun 18, 1:54*pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:

> It is hard to argue with you, since you keep shifting the goal posts.
> And do you notice that the other gliders you cite lack flaps?

I cited unflapped gliders because the Std Cirrus is unflapped. I was
trying to do a direct comparison between aircraft in the same class,
since newer std-class gliders have flatter polars and higher max L/Ds
than the Std Cirrus.

I'm not moving the goal-posts, its just a complicated set of goals.
Like aircraft themselves, any solution will be a compromise.

That's why I settled on the DG-300 - it fits a combination of my
safety & ergonomic needs, flying style, local weather, intended usage,
performance minimums, and personal goals. Now I just hope that I
don't find it "boring" to fly after a few years... :-)

> Yes, and compare Thorsten's performance with that of the other flights
> at Parowan yesterday. *Pretty good in comparison to the flapped ships,
> don't you think?
>
> The point is that it is pilot skill, not flaps, that is the relevant factor.

OK, point taken. I didn't look up the other OLC flights for that day
- I'll have to do so!

Take care,

--Noel

Scott[_7_]

June 19th 08, 02:43 AM

noel.wade wrote:

>
>
> Yeah - sucks to be me, eh?
>
> Honestly, I wouldn't buy one of those big-span gliders even if I had
> the money - they make it too easy! Don't like the lift? Simply level
> out and fly to the next state (or country, if you're in
> Europe)... ;-)
>
> --Noel
> (Who would have loved to put his money where his mouth is by competing
> in the Region 8 contest next week; but couldn't get the time off work
> - argh!)
>
You could always quit your job ;)

Adam

June 19th 08, 06:15 AM

On Jun 18, 1:43 pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> On Jun 18, 11:14 am, Greg Arnold > wrote:
>
> > 838 km at 117 km/hr in a classic Standard Cirrus. Of course, Thorsten
> > is a good pilot -- he is achieving most of that 50% difference due to
> > skill level.
>
> As a side-note:
>
> While I have the utmost respect for Thorsten, I *hate* these kinds of
> comments!
snip...
> (i.e. think what Thorsten could have done on
> that day with an LS-8 or ASW-28 or Discus 2!!).
>
>
> Take care,
>
> --Noel

He could have done another 150k or so. The same day, two motorized,
flapped ships did 1000k. Consider that Thorsten was back 1.5 hours
before another 1000k pilot who landed at sunset and had a higher
average speed than both. Fantastic!

I think you need to take an intermediary step before you buy the "end-
all" ship. You priorities may change a lot in the next five-ten years
and you may want say, a self-launcher, for example. In any case, I was
advised by many to buy the best condition my budget could afford. So I
passed on the 40:1 newer ship in fair shape in favor of the 38:1 in
far better condition.

/Adam

Andreas Maurer[_1_]

June 19th 08, 12:37 PM

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:25:12 -0700 (PDT), "noel.wade"
> wrote:

>That's why I settled on the DG-300 - it fits a combination of my
>safety & ergonomic needs, flying style, local weather, intended usage,
>performance minimums, and personal goals. Now I just hope that I
>don't find it "boring" to fly after a few years... :-)

Once again, I don't want to disappoint you, but my club's students
find the DG-300 extremely boring after about two years and look
forward to fly the ASW-24... which they find boring again after at
maximum another two years when they are allowed to fly the ASW-27...
;)

Bye
Andreas

Nyal Williams[_2_]

June 19th 08, 03:13 PM

That's the call of the siren.

At 11:37 19 June 2008, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:25:12 -0700 (PDT), "noel.wade"
> wrote:
>
>
>>That's why I settled on the DG-300 - it fits a combination of my
>>safety & ergonomic needs, flying style, local weather, intended usage,
>>performance minimums, and personal goals. Now I just hope that I
>>don't find it "boring" to fly after a few years... :-)
>
>Once again, I don't want to disappoint you, but my club's students
>find the DG-300 extremely boring after about two years and look
>forward to fly the ASW-24... which they find boring again after at
>maximum another two years when they are allowed to fly the ASW-27...
>;)
>
>
>Bye
>Andreas
>

Bruce

June 19th 08, 03:34 PM

Funny - I was completely happy with my Std Cirrus for 5 years.
Still find it challenging. sometimes I manage to beat 100km/h or do >300km and the reward is great.
On the same day the higher performance types are sometimes doing greater distances, but not always.

Then the dark side started on me...
In my case there are two kids who are keen - so gliding can become a family thing. 20m of two seater on order.

To parody mastercard - the cost is considerable - the experiences priceless.

Bruce

Nyal Williams wrote:
> That's the call of the siren.
>
> At 11:37 19 June 2008, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:25:12 -0700 (PDT), "noel.wade"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That's why I settled on the DG-300 - it fits a combination of my
>>> safety & ergonomic needs, flying style, local weather, intended usage,
>>> performance minimums, and personal goals. Now I just hope that I
>>> don't find it "boring" to fly after a few years... :-)
>> Once again, I don't want to disappoint you, but my club's students
>> find the DG-300 extremely boring after about two years and look
>> forward to fly the ASW-24... which they find boring again after at
>> maximum another two years when they are allowed to fly the ASW-27...
>> ;)
>>
>>
>> Bye
>> Andreas
>>

Brian[_1_]

June 19th 08, 05:12 PM

Noel,

My prediction is that you will love the DG 300.

I hope to see you at the Region 8 contest next year.

I will be happy to try to keep up with you in my HP16T. I can
occasionally keep up with SN when he is having a particularly bad day.

Brian

[email protected]

June 19th 08, 06:46 PM

my 2 cents:

buy the cheapest glider you can afford
spend the leftover money on gas for retrieves
have fun FLYING!

[email protected]

June 19th 08, 07:28 PM

On Jun 19, 7:37*am, Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:25:12 -0700 (PDT), "noel.wade"
>
> > wrote:
> >That's why I settled on the DG-300 - it fits a combination of my
> >safety & ergonomic needs, flying style, local weather, intended usage,
> >performance minimums, and personal goals. *Now I just hope that I
> >don't find it "boring" to fly after a few years... :-)
>
> Once again, I don't want to disappoint you, but my club's students
> find the DG-300 extremely boring after about two years and look
> forward to fly the ASW-24... which they find boring again after at
> maximum another two years when they are allowed to fly the ASW-27...
> ;)
>
> Bye
> Andreas

I came back to Standard Class after 13 years in 15 Meter and have
never been bored in the ASW 24 (sorry, Andreas!). Not much difference
in the Eastern US most of the time. In strong conditions, I see as
much difference due to wingloading (newer ships in both classes can
get heavier) as to flaps. Biggest reason to go with flaps is easier
landing in short fields. But with the '24, I've flown as Standard,
Sports, 15M, and even Open Class. The latter was at Hobbs: on the
strong days, I could stay with the big ships due to turning tighter
and having higher wingloading. But when it got weak or a blue hole
opened up (as always seemed to happen), it got ugly: there's no
substitute for span. :) I'm sure you'll like the DG 300 whether for a
few years or long term, depending on what you want to do/accomplish in
soaring. There's always something else to buy, but for most of us
there's always much more to learn.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

Jonathon May[_2_]

June 19th 08, 08:28 PM

At 18:28 19 June 2008, wrote:
>On Jun 19, 7:37=A0am, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:25:12 -0700 (PDT), "noel.wade"
>>
>> wrote:
>> >That's why I settled on the DG-300 - it fits a combination of my
>> >safety & ergonomic needs, flying style, local weather, intended
usage,
>> >performance minimums, and personal goals. =A0Now I just hope that I
>> >don't find it "boring" to fly after a few years... :-)
>>
>> Once again, I don't want to disappoint you, but my club's students
>> find the DG-300 extremely boring after about two years and look
>> forward to fly the ASW-24... which they find boring again after at
>> maximum another two years when they are allowed to fly the ASW-27...
>> ;)
>>
>> Bye
>> Andreas
>
>I came back to Standard Class after 13 years in 15 Meter and have
>never been bored in the ASW 24 (sorry, Andreas!). Not much difference
>in the Eastern US most of the time. In strong conditions, I see as
>much difference due to wingloading (newer ships in both classes can
>get heavier) as to flaps. Biggest reason to go with flaps is easier
>landing in short fields. But with the '24, I've flown as Standard,
>Sports, 15M, and even Open Class. The latter was at Hobbs: on the
>strong days, I could stay with the big ships due to turning tighter
>and having higher wingloading. But when it got weak or a blue hole
>opened up (as always seemed to happen), it got ugly: there's no
>substitute for span. :) I'm sure you'll like the DG 300 whether for a
>few years or long term, depending on what you want to do/accomplish in
>soaring. There's always something else to buy, but for most of us
>there's always much more to learn.
>
>Chip Bearden
>ASW 24 "JB"
>USA
>

Is there still an AD on D300 restricting vne

Bob Kuykendall

June 19th 08, 09:15 PM

On Jun 19, 12:28*pm, Jonathon May > wrote:
> Is there still an AD on D300 restricting vne- Hide quoted text -

In the US, so far as I know there is not an AD and never was.

Thanks, Bob K.

Bob Kuykendall

June 19th 08, 10:54 PM

On Jun 19, 1:15*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:

> In the US, so far as I know there is not an AD and never was.

To expand on that a bit, the worst-known ondulated DG300 still held
static test loads of about 9g, well in excess of the appropriate
category limit loading specified in FAR part 23. I forget which
category we're talking about, but I seem to recall that the
commensurate load is 5.3g with a safety factor of 1.5, or 8g.

As I understand it, the main issue is that they wouldn't support the
loadings specified by the more conservative European JAR22, something
like 5.3 * 1.725 or 9.1g.

Thanks, Bob K.

Jonathon May[_2_]

June 19th 08, 10:58 PM

At 20:15 19 June 2008, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>On Jun 19, 12:28=A0pm, Jonathon May wrote:
>> Is there still an AD on D300 restricting vne- Hide quoted text -
>
>In the US, so far as I know there is not an AD and never was.
>
>Thanks, Bob K.
>
I have just checked it was in 2007 and it was a restriction until
inspection.If you go to the bga site they list all AD for all makes.
Thats why its worth asking here.
Jon

Marc Ramsey[_2_]

June 19th 08, 11:37 PM

Jonathon May wrote:
> At 20:15 19 June 2008, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 12:28=A0pm, Jonathon May wrote:
>>> Is there still an AD on D300 restricting vne- Hide quoted text -
>> In the US, so far as I know there is not an AD and never was.
>>
>> Thanks, Bob K.
>>
> I have just checked it was in 2007 and it was a restriction until
> inspection.If you go to the bga site they list all AD for all makes.
> Thats why its worth asking here.

The DG-300 does not have a standard type certificate in the US, so the
FAA does not issue ADs for them. However, the operating limitations
issued along with the special airworthiness certificate almost certainly
requires compliance with any service bulletins issued by the factory, so
any Vne or gross weight restrictions issued in a DG service bulletin are
applicable...

Marc

Darryl Ramm

June 19th 08, 11:51 PM

On Jun 19, 2:58*pm, Jonathon May > wrote:
> At 20:15 19 June 2008, Bob Kuykendall wrote:>On Jun 19, 12:28=A0pm, Jonathon May *wrote:
> >> Is there still an AD on D300 restricting vne- Hide quoted text -
>
> >In the US, so far as I know there is not an AD and never was.
>
> >Thanks, Bob K.
>
> I have just checked it was in 2007 and it was a restriction until
> inspection.If you go to the bga site they list all AD for all makes.
> Thats why its worth asking here.
> Jon

As Bob said, it was not an AD in the USA, a factor in that is likely
all DG-30x are licensed in the experimental category in the USA. It
was a EASA AD and is documented as DG TN-359/24. Look through the
r.a.s archives and you'll see folks, including Bob discussing the
technical issues behind this TN in detail.I personally ignored it for
my DG-303 based in part from my comfort of previous loading of the
aircraft doing aerobatics and lots of XC flying at the old MTOW. When
I sold the glider I changed the ASI markings, replaced the cockpit
placards etc. to comply with the (voluntary in the USA) TN.

Darryl

Marc Ramsey[_2_]

June 19th 08, 11:59 PM

Darryl Ramm wrote:
> When
> I sold the glider I changed the ASI markings, replaced the cockpit
> placards etc. to comply with the (voluntary in the USA) TN.

Unless you had unusually liberal ops lims, it wasn't voluntary...

Marc

Eric Greenwell

July 3rd 08, 06:33 AM

Jim Beckman wrote:

> Then again, if what he really wants is a challenge, maybe he
> should buy a 1-26 and find out if he *really* knows how to
> fly cross country.

You find out if you can fly cross country well by flying in contests,
and flying for badges and records. You don't find it out just by flying
a particular glider. Without other pilots to compare yourself to, you
can't be sure how well you used the opportunities the day offered.

> Great competition ship, too. Real
> mano-a-mano, no equipment differences.

ANY one-model competition can say the same thing, whether it's 1-26, ASW
20, LS 4, Nimbus 4, whatever.

--
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

Jim Beckman[_2_]

July 3rd 08, 01:27 PM

At 05:33 03 July 2008, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Jim Beckman wrote:
>
>> Great competition ship, too. Real
>> mano-a-mano, no equipment differences.
>
>ANY one-model competition can say the same thing, whether it's 1-26, ASW

>20, LS 4, Nimbus 4, whatever.

Sure. But the 1-26 is the only glider I'm aware of, at least
in this country, where such organized contests are
readily available. (OK, there's the World Class, but the
1-26s have several times the turnout as do the PW-5s.)

Jim Beckman

Eric Greenwell

July 3rd 08, 08:41 PM

Jim Beckman wrote:
> At 05:33 03 July 2008, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Jim Beckman wrote:
>>
>>> Great competition ship, too. Real
>>> mano-a-mano, no equipment differences.
>> ANY one-model competition can say the same thing, whether it's 1-26, ASW
>
>> 20, LS 4, Nimbus 4, whatever.
>
> Sure. But the 1-26 is the only glider I'm aware of, at least
> in this country, where such organized contests are
> readily available. (OK, there's the World Class, but the
> 1-26s have several times the turnout as do the PW-5s.)

The 1-26 is numerous in this country, and there isn't any other glider
with similar performance to compete against it, so it makes sense to
have "one-design" contests. I am curious how many pilots compete in 1-26
contests primarily because it's a one-design contest and the
"mano-a-mano" aspect is important to them. My guess is most competitors
bought it for other reasons.

In practice, the desire for other one-model classes is not strong
because they are similar enough that the difference in performance is
not a big issue. FAI gliders built within about 20 years of each other
probably don't vary any more in performance than the various 1-26
models, especially when you consider the difference pilot weight can
make in the 1-26.

So, you can still go mano-a-mano in the Standard or 15 Meter classes,
probably even in the Open Class, and easily figure out which pilot is
doing the better job. Shucks, you can even merge the Std/15 meter
classes, as sometimes happens in Regionals, and sometimes watch the Std
Class pilot(s) whomp the field.

--
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