I don't think the PW-5 is that bad of a glider. I only
know one person who owns one and I have yet to fly
one. My only draw back on the idea is that you can
spend the same amount of money for a slower, less L/D,
less performance PW-5 as you can for a faster, higher
L/D, higher performance ASW-20, LS-3, LS-4, DG300 and
so on. I would actually rather own a Libelle than a
PW-5 and I can find Libelle's that are several thousand
dollars cheaper than any PW-5 and they are better performers.
Just my opinion,
Brian
MB1


At 21:54 20 August 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
Speaking of Russias,

The BGA site has three problems with the Russia,
it seems.
One was even a 87 knot limitation (!). I was surprised
to see
this (apparently the result of an aileron problem on
a
factory test flight(?)

I've flown a Russia (the retract version) and really
enjoyed the
polar, but the auto-connecting ailerons had just a
smidge of
click/slop. Our towpilot, who owns a Russia and is
an A&P,
thinks they are a little underbuilt. He thought the
PW-5 we had
for two years was a bit more rugged.

I personally liked the retract Russia polar so much,
and the low weight,
and the assembly, that I'd consider buying one, but
I'd like to see
how the 'ruggedness factor' plays out first with the
ones at the field.

Of course in the meantime I'm aching for the time
and opportunity
to visit a place with a sparrowhawk. Being 5'6' (when
hung from
my heels) and maybe 160# soaking wet, I love little
short wings and
a light glider.

Any Russia guys have any 'ruggedness' stories?

Tony Verhulst wrote:

If this were true, you'd see Russia's getting criticized
in this forum -
not to mention the Silent-in, plus a lot of other ships.
You don't see
that, do you? IMHO, the PW5 doesn't get criticized
for being a PW5, it
gets criticized for being chosen as the world class
glider - when they
could have done so much better.
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA