Cross Country Sailplanes: In the Flatland

[Chris Prince]

I'm not a frequent reader of rec.aviation.soaring, so at the risk of
asking a common question, I'll pose my question. I fly cross country here
in the meaty middle (cheesy middle? ;)) part of the US-- mostly Wisconsin,
often Minnesota, sometimes Iowa, Illinois, South Dakota, Michigan. I often
land off-field (in 50 cross country flights, or attempts, I've landed
off-field on 26 flights).

While landing off-field seems to be a downside for some pilots, I take it
as just a natural part of aggressively flying cross country. Of course, I
fly in a part of the world where this is often possible. There are usually
fields with low crops or cut hay fields in good abundance in this part of
the US. And, for whatever reason, I've had very good experiences with
farmers!

I want to change ships. Presently, I fly a Schweizer 1-35. While I enjoy
the heck out of flying this ship, and have it pimped out just right :), I
have reached max gross weight on the ship, and want to add more toys. For
example, I want to take my ship out West to do some mountain flying, and
thus need to add an O2 system. While some people decide to fly over max
gross weight, I don't choose to do so.

My budget is in the same range as the cost of a Schweizer 1-35 (around 20K
US dollars). I don't particlarly feel the need to go up in L/D
performance. My thought is while that would give me longer legs, my
soaring enjoyment largely comes from challenging myself to the next
longest flight in my current ship-- I don't see the need for more than
35:1 or so. I'd rather work on my skills than add L/D to my ship.

I think a 15-meter ship is best for my flying. While there are many nice
ships with longer spans, I have landed at relatively narrow private
airfields. I don't know if a span winder than 15-m would fit. Plus, I
often like to pull off of an asphalt runway, between landing lights, to
give way to traffic. I'd rather not do that with longer wings.

So, given this wing span (15-m), budget range (20K-ish), and this
performance range (35:1-ish), and my frequency of landing off-field, and
my need to have enough gross weight for a reasonable equipment load
(normal glider instruments, plus transponder, dual batteries, off-field
landing kit, O2 system, GPS etc) what's the best ship?

My thoughts right now have put a priority on a T-tailed ship, and one that
sits up really high on the gear. Perhaps I should state: top-wing-only dive
brakes too. A T-tail ship should keep the horizontal stabilizer away from
any crops, and the same rationale applies to the dive brakes. Having the
ship sit up really high on the gear helps not only with the crop, but any
furrows in the field, to reduce scraping on the buttom of the hull, and
gear doors.

Within my price range a Jantar Standard seems to fit these criteria. The
DG-100/101 from what I've read, can be fitted with an extra large wheel.
That might be a good option though, though I'm not sure how much larger
that extra large wheel can be, and how much higher it makes the ship sit
(I need to contact DG).

Thoughts?

Thanks, and Safe Soaring!
Chris.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

Chris Prince wrote:
<Snip>
> I want to change ships. Presently, I fly a Schweizer 1-35.
<Snip...>
> I have reached max gross weight on the ship, and want to add more toys.
<Snip...>
> My budget is in the same range as the cost of a Schweizer 1-35 (around 20K
> US dollars). I don't particlarly feel the need to go up in L/D
> performance.
<Snip...>
> I think a 15-meter ship is best for my flying.
<Snip...>
> My thoughts right now have put a priority on a T-tailed ship, and one that
> sits up really high on the gear. Perhaps I should state: top-wing-only dive
> brakes too.
<Snip...>
> Within my price range a Jantar Standard seems to fit these criteria.
<Snip>
> Thoughts?

Given that you've already crossed to the dark side (i.e.
large-deflection landing flaps), you've just described an unmodified
Zuni I (Zuni II's sit lower). and a Slingsby Vega. (And, Wil Schuemann's
former AS W-12 in its 15-meter form...which lacks dive brakes
altogether, relying on two drag 'chutes.)

Finding taller-geared ships will be difficult.

The Zuni (with large ballast tanks) flies at wing loadings of ~5.5
psf->~11 psf. I can never remember if its gross weight is 1100 pounds or
1200 pounds; empty weight with an O2 system will be under 700 pounds.
It'll easily fall within your price range, too.

Regards,
Bob W.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Aug 9, 6:45*pm, Chris Prince > wrote:
> I'm not a frequent reader of rec.aviation.soaring, so at the risk of
> asking a common question, I'll pose my question. I fly cross country here
> in the meaty middle (cheesy middle? ;)) part of the US-- mostly Wisconsin,
> often Minnesota, sometimes Iowa, Illinois, South Dakota, Michigan. I often
> land off-field (in 50 cross country flights, or attempts, I've landed
> off-field on 26 flights).
>
> While landing off-field seems to be a downside for some pilots, I take it
> as just a natural part of aggressively flying cross country. Of course, I
> fly in a part of the world where this is often possible. There are usually
> fields with low crops or cut hay fields in good abundance in this part of
> the US. And, for whatever reason, I've had very good experiences with
> farmers!
>
> I want to change ships. Presently, I fly a Schweizer 1-35. While I enjoy
> the heck out of flying this ship, and have it pimped out just right :), I
> have reached max gross weight on the ship, and want to add more toys. For
> example, I want to take my ship out West to do some mountain flying, and
> thus need to add an O2 system. While some people decide to fly over max
> gross weight, I don't choose to do so.
>
> My budget is in the same range as the cost of a Schweizer 1-35 (around 20K
> US dollars). I don't particlarly feel the need to go up in L/D
> performance. My thought is while that would give me longer legs, my
> soaring enjoyment largely comes from challenging myself to the next
> longest flight in my current ship-- I don't see the need for more than
> 35:1 or so. I'd rather work on my skills than add L/D to my ship.
>
> I think a 15-meter ship is best for my flying. While there are many nice
> ships with longer spans, I have landed at relatively narrow private
> airfields. I don't know if a span winder than 15-m would fit. Plus, I
> often like to pull off of an asphalt runway, between landing lights, to
> give way to traffic. I'd rather not do that with longer wings.
>
> So, given this wing span (15-m), budget range (20K-ish), and this
> performance range (35:1-ish), and my frequency of landing off-field, and
> my need to have enough gross weight for a reasonable equipment load
> (normal glider instruments, plus transponder, dual batteries, off-field
> landing kit, O2 system, GPS etc) what's the best ship?
>
> My thoughts right now have put a priority on a T-tailed ship, and one that
> sits up really high on the gear. Perhaps I should state: top-wing-only dive
> brakes too. A T-tail ship should keep the horizontal stabilizer away from
> any crops, and the same rationale applies to the dive brakes. Having the
> ship sit up really high on the gear helps not only with the crop, but any
> furrows in the field, to reduce scraping on the buttom of the hull, and
> gear doors.
>
> Within my price range a Jantar Standard seems to fit these criteria. The
> DG-100/101 from what I've read, can be fitted with an extra large wheel.
> That might be a good option though, though I'm not sure how much larger
> that extra large wheel can be, and how much higher it makes the ship sit
> (I need to contact DG).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks, and Safe Soaring!
> Chris.

Std Jantar 2 sits tall on the gear and is pretty honest about 1/40,
better than the DG100/101. DG has a bit nicer handling with
parallelogram stick, but loses on performance. Very strong though.

Payload should be okay. Have you seen Adam's Jantar?

PIK-20B if you want a bit more performance and landing flaps. They
may be hard to rig after the temp exceeds 70F or so.

EDS with composite tank won't add much weight to either and will
lighten your wallet a bit.

Frank Whiteley

[Eric Greenwell]

Chris Prince wrote:
> I'm not a frequent reader of rec.aviation.soaring, so at the risk of
> asking a common question, I'll pose my question. I fly cross country here
> in the meaty middle (cheesy middle? ;)) part of the US-- mostly Wisconsin,
> often Minnesota, sometimes Iowa, Illinois, South Dakota, Michigan. I often
> land off-field (in 50 cross country flights, or attempts, I've landed
> off-field on 26 flights).

I'm curious about the "back-story". Who retrieves you all those times?

snip
>
> I want to change ships. Presently, I fly a Schweizer 1-35. While I enjoy
> the heck out of flying this ship, and have it pimped out just right :), I
> have reached max gross weight on the ship, and want to add more toys. For
> example, I want to take my ship out West to do some mountain flying, and
> thus need to add an O2 system. While some people decide to fly over max
> gross weight, I don't choose to do so.

The SSA Sailplane Directory shows a 260 pound payload for the 1-35,
which seems enough to carry plenty of toys. The gliders I'm familiar
with have a *lower* payload, so I'm not sure a different glider will
improve the situation. If you are likely to be close to the max cockpit
weight, you better carefully weigh any glider before you buy it and
determine the allowable cockpit load, or you will probably still have
the over-gross problem.

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

* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* Sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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

[Frank Whiteley]

On Aug 9, 8:36*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Chris Prince wrote:
> > I'm not a frequent reader of rec.aviation.soaring, so at the risk of
> > asking a common question, I'll pose my question. I fly cross country here
> > in the meaty middle (cheesy middle? ;)) part of the US-- mostly Wisconsin,
> > often Minnesota, sometimes Iowa, Illinois, South Dakota, Michigan. I often
> > land off-field (in 50 cross country flights, or attempts, I've landed
> > off-field on 26 flights).
>
> I'm curious about the "back-story". Who retrieves you all those times?
>
> snip
>
>
>
> > I want to change ships. Presently, I fly a Schweizer 1-35. While I enjoy
> > the heck out of flying this ship, and have it pimped out just right :), I
> > have reached max gross weight on the ship, and want to add more toys. For
> > example, I want to take my ship out West to do some mountain flying, and
> > thus need to add an O2 system. While some people decide to fly over max
> > gross weight, I don't choose to do so.
>
> The SSA Sailplane Directory shows a 260 pound payload for the 1-35,
> which seems enough to carry plenty of toys. The gliders I'm familiar
> with have a *lower* payload, so I'm not sure a different glider will
> improve the situation. If you are likely to be close to the max cockpit
> weight, you better carefully weigh any glider before you buy it and
> determine the allowable cockpit load, or you will probably still have
> the over-gross problem.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> * "Transponders in Sailplanes"http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * * * Sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org

If that's the case that cockpit load is an issue, the ASW-19 and the
DG-100/101 were pre-JAR 22 and allowed a higher payload, rather than
the min-max 110kg. However, the only ASW-19 I looked over had a
mystery 10lbs we couldn't find (lead in tail?) and was heavily
equipped which brought the payload down to 225lbs tops.

A partner in a Genesis 2 might be the ticket.

Frank Whiteley

[Adam]

On Aug 9, 9:15*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Aug 9, 6:45*pm, Chris Prince > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm not a frequent reader of rec.aviation.soaring, so at the risk of
> > asking a common question, I'll pose my question. I fly cross country here
> > in the meaty middle (cheesy middle? ;)) part of the US-- mostly Wisconsin,
> > often Minnesota, sometimes Iowa, Illinois, South Dakota, Michigan. I often
> > land off-field (in 50 cross country flights, or attempts, I've landed
> > off-field on 26 flights).
>
> > While landing off-field seems to be a downside for some pilots, I take it
> > as just a natural part of aggressively flying cross country. Of course, I
> > fly in a part of the world where this is often possible. There are usually
> > fields with low crops or cut hay fields in good abundance in this part of
> > the US. And, for whatever reason, I've had very good experiences with
> > farmers!
>
> > I want to change ships. Presently, I fly a Schweizer 1-35. While I enjoy
> > the heck out of flying this ship, and have it pimped out just right :), I
> > have reached max gross weight on the ship, and want to add more toys. For
> > example, I want to take my ship out West to do some mountain flying, and
> > thus need to add an O2 system. While some people decide to fly over max
> > gross weight, I don't choose to do so.
>
> > My budget is in the same range as the cost of a Schweizer 1-35 (around 20K
> > US dollars). I don't particlarly feel the need to go up in L/D
> > performance. My thought is while that would give me longer legs, my
> > soaring enjoyment largely comes from challenging myself to the next
> > longest flight in my current ship-- I don't see the need for more than
> > 35:1 or so. I'd rather work on my skills than add L/D to my ship.
>
> > I think a 15-meter ship is best for my flying. While there are many nice
> > ships with longer spans, I have landed at relatively narrow private
> > airfields. I don't know if a span winder than 15-m would fit. Plus, I
> > often like to pull off of an asphalt runway, between landing lights, to
> > give way to traffic. I'd rather not do that with longer wings.
>
> > So, given this wing span (15-m), budget range (20K-ish), and this
> > performance range (35:1-ish), and my frequency of landing off-field, and
> > my need to have enough gross weight for a reasonable equipment load
> > (normal glider instruments, plus transponder, dual batteries, off-field
> > landing kit, O2 system, GPS etc) what's the best ship?
>
> > My thoughts right now have put a priority on a T-tailed ship, and one that
> > sits up really high on the gear. Perhaps I should state: top-wing-only dive
> > brakes too. A T-tail ship should keep the horizontal stabilizer away from
> > any crops, and the same rationale applies to the dive brakes. Having the
> > ship sit up really high on the gear helps not only with the crop, but any
> > furrows in the field, to reduce scraping on the buttom of the hull, and
> > gear doors.
>
> > Within my price range a Jantar Standard seems to fit these criteria. The
> > DG-100/101 from what I've read, can be fitted with an extra large wheel..
> > That might be a good option though, though I'm not sure how much larger
> > that extra large wheel can be, and how much higher it makes the ship sit
> > (I need to contact DG).
>
> > Thoughts?
>
> > Thanks, and Safe Soaring!
> > Chris.
>
> Std Jantar 2 sits tall on the gear and is pretty honest about 1/40,
> better than the DG100/101. *DG has a bit nicer handling with
> parallelogram stick, but loses on performance. *Very strong though.
>
> Payload should be okay. *Have you seen Adam's Jantar?
>
> PIK-20B if you want a bit more performance and landing flaps. *They
> may be hard to rig after the temp exceeds 70F or so.
>
> EDS with composite tank won't add much weight to either and will
> lighten your wallet a bit.
>
> Frank Whiteley

Hi Frank,

Chris was down at my field a couple of weeks ago and helped me rig up.
He briefly owned a Jantar Standard 1 that was hit by a storm while
tied down in the trailer - I'll let him fill you in on the ugly
details...

I would like to note that the figures listed in the sailplane
directory for the Jantar's sink rate is for the fully-ballasted
condition and are not representative when it is flown dry.

/Adam

[Chris Prince]

[Snip]

>
>Given that you've already crossed to the dark side (i.e.
>large-deflection landing flaps), you've just described an unmodified
>Zuni I (Zuni II's sit lower). and a Slingsby Vega. (And, Wil
Schuemann's
>former AS W-12 in its 15-meter form...which lacks dive brakes
>altogether, relying on two drag 'chutes.)
>
>Finding taller-geared ships will be difficult.
>
>The Zuni (with large ballast tanks) flies at wing loadings of ~5.5
>psf->~11 psf. I can never remember if its gross weight is 1100 pounds or

>1200 pounds; empty weight with an O2 system will be under 700 pounds.
>It'll easily fall within your price range, too.
>
>Regards,
>Bob W.
>

Many Thanks Bob! I've found some pictures of the Slingsby Vega-- it does
sit up really well on the gear! Drool ;). I'll look for some pictures of
the Zuni sitting on its gear.

Chris.

[Chris Prince]

[Snip]

>Std Jantar 2 sits tall on the gear and is pretty honest about 1/40,
>better than the DG100/101. DG has a bit nicer handling with
>parallelogram stick, but loses on performance. Very strong though.
>
>Payload should be okay. Have you seen Adam's Jantar?
>
>PIK-20B if you want a bit more performance and landing flaps. They
>may be hard to rig after the temp exceeds 70F or so.
>
>EDS with composite tank won't add much weight to either and will
>lighten your wallet a bit.
>
>Frank Whiteley
>
>

Thanks for your thoughts, Frank! (I'm not quite understanding the "EDS
with composite tank" part of this though.)

Chris.

[Chris Prince]

[Snip]

>Std Jantar 2 sits tall on the gear and is pretty honest about 1/40,
>better than the DG100/101. DG has a bit nicer handling with
>parallelogram stick, but loses on performance. Very strong though.
>
>Payload should be okay. Have you seen Adam's Jantar?
>
>PIK-20B if you want a bit more performance and landing flaps. They
>may be hard to rig after the temp exceeds 70F or so.
>
>EDS with composite tank won't add much weight to either and will
>lighten your wallet a bit.
>
>Frank Whiteley
>
>

Thanks for your thoughts, Frank! (I'm not quite understanding the "EDS
with composite tank" part of this though.)

Chris.

[Chris Prince]

[Snip]

>Std Jantar 2 sits tall on the gear and is pretty honest about 1/40,
>better than the DG100/101. DG has a bit nicer handling with
>parallelogram stick, but loses on performance. Very strong though.
>
>Payload should be okay. Have you seen Adam's Jantar?
>
>PIK-20B if you want a bit more performance and landing flaps. They
>may be hard to rig after the temp exceeds 70F or so.
>
>EDS with composite tank won't add much weight to either and will
>lighten your wallet a bit.
>
>Frank Whiteley
>
>

Thanks for your thoughts, Frank! (I'm not quite understanding the "EDS
with composite tank" part of this though.)

Chris.

[Chris Prince]

[Snip]

>Std Jantar 2 sits tall on the gear and is pretty honest about 1/40,
>better than the DG100/101. DG has a bit nicer handling with
>parallelogram stick, but loses on performance. Very strong though.
>
>Payload should be okay. Have you seen Adam's Jantar?
>
>PIK-20B if you want a bit more performance and landing flaps. They
>may be hard to rig after the temp exceeds 70F or so.
>
>EDS with composite tank won't add much weight to either and will
>lighten your wallet a bit.
>
>Frank Whiteley
>
>

Thanks for your thoughts, Frank! (I'm not quite understanding the "EDS
with composite tank" part of this though.)

Chris.

[Chris Prince]

[Snip]

>Std Jantar 2 sits tall on the gear and is pretty honest about 1/40,
>better than the DG100/101. DG has a bit nicer handling with
>parallelogram stick, but loses on performance. Very strong though.
>
>Payload should be okay. Have you seen Adam's Jantar?
>
>PIK-20B if you want a bit more performance and landing flaps. They
>may be hard to rig after the temp exceeds 70F or so.
>
>EDS with composite tank won't add much weight to either and will
>lighten your wallet a bit.
>
>Frank Whiteley
>
>

Thanks for your thoughts, Frank! (I'm not quite understanding the "EDS
with composite tank" part of this though.)

Chris.

[Chris Prince]

At 02:36 10 August 2009, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Chris Prince wrote:
>> I'm not a frequent reader of rec.aviation.soaring, so at the risk of
>> asking a common question, I'll pose my question. I fly cross country
>here
>> in the meaty middle (cheesy middle? ;)) part of the US-- mostly
>Wisconsin,
>> often Minnesota, sometimes Iowa, Illinois, South Dakota, Michigan. I
>often
>> land off-field (in 50 cross country flights, or attempts, I've landed
>> off-field on 26 flights).
>
>I'm curious about the "back-story". Who retrieves you all those
times?

I am fortunate to fly with a club where many people crew. A very good
buddy of mine -- Walter Johnson-- has crewed the most (21 flights). For
more details than you wanted--
http://www.d.umn.edu/~cprince/soaring/Flights/

>snip
>>
>> I want to change ships. Presently, I fly a Schweizer 1-35. While I
enjoy
>> the heck out of flying this ship, and have it pimped out just right
:),
>I
>> have reached max gross weight on the ship, and want to add more toys.
>For
>> example, I want to take my ship out West to do some mountain flying,
and
>> thus need to add an O2 system. While some people decide to fly over
max
>> gross weight, I don't choose to do so.
>
>The SSA Sailplane Directory shows a 260 pound payload for the 1-35,
>which seems enough to carry plenty of toys. The gliders I'm familiar
>with have a *lower* payload, so I'm not sure a different glider will
>improve the situation. If you are likely to be close to the max cockpit
>weight, you better carefully weigh any glider before you buy it and
>determine the allowable cockpit load, or you will probably still have
>the over-gross problem.

My 1-35 indicates 685 max gross in the manual. When I had all the
equipment I wanted (included 02 system), it weighed in at 520, leaving
pilot weight at 165. I weigh in at about 170 lbs. Parachute, clothes,
water etc. bring me in over gross.

I agree, I need to weigh any glider before buying.

Chris.

>
>--
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
>* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * Sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>
>* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at
www.motorglider.org
>

[Wayne Paul]

"Chris Prince" > wrote in message ...
> [Snip]
>
> Thanks for your thoughts, Frank! (I'm not quite understanding the "EDS
> with composite tank" part of this though.)
>
Chris,

Frank is referring to the Mountain High oxygen system. They have created a light weight Kevlar O2 tanks.
http://www.mhoxygen.com/

Wayne
HP14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/

[sisu1a]

> Thanks for your thoughts, Frank! (I'm not quite understanding the
"EDS
> with composite tank" part of this though.)
>
> Chris.

http://www.mhoxygen.com/ the EDS O2 system reduces your tank size by
a factor of 3 (http://www.mhoxygen.com/images/Duration-Chart.pdf) for
the same given amount of man hour usage over a standard constant flow
regulator, and a composite tank (carbon or kevlar wrapped aluminum
cylinder) is very light compared to a steel cylinder, but neither are
cheap, although it may be a cheaper option to install a $1200-$1500
oxy system in your plane you have rather than buying a new plane to
install around a cheaper oxy system.

If you have a forward hinged 1-35, by switching back to a removable
canopy, you will gain much usable cockpit load... I'm sure any 1-35
driver with a non-hinged canopy would be happy to trade. Of course
this is of no help if you are really just rationalizing buying a new
ship (which there is nothing wrong with of course, and incidentally no
cure for either- other than a new ship ;)

-Paul

[Eric Greenwell]

sisu1a wrote:

>
> http://www.mhoxygen.com/ the EDS O2 system reduces your tank size by
> a factor of 3 (http://www.mhoxygen.com/images/Duration-Chart.pdf) for
> the same given amount of man hour usage over a standard constant flow
> regulator, and a composite tank (carbon or kevlar wrapped aluminum
> cylinder) is very light compared to a steel cylinder,

Aluminum cylinders are readily available, and much lower cost than the
composite wrapped cylinders. A 22 cubic foot (626 liters) aluminum
cylinder weighs about 8.5 pounds; the closed equivlaent Kevlar wrapped
cylinder weighs 4 pounds. You pay a lot for the 4.5 pound savings.

I do use and recommend the Mountain High EDS-O2D1 controller (it's not
just the oxygen savings, but the automatic operation and warnings it
provides). My 13 cubic foot aluminum bottle lasts approximately one hour
per 100 psi of bottle pressure when flying in the 14,000-18,000 range at
places like Ely, Parowan, and Minden. Practically speaking, that's about
3 flights off a full (~2000 psi) bottle, and the bottles are cheap
enough to own two, so I always have a full spare ready to go in the trailer.

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

* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* Sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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