The use of flaps (somewhat) mitigates the need for water. Only time
will tell if the flaps increase the insurance rates.

I really like the fixed gear, and suspect the insurance rates of the
LS-4 vs. Apis will reflect this.

Beyond that, as I am not so girthy as some americans, I fit in even quite
small cockpits. The larger cockpits are simply a waste for me.

If one wants water, retract, and no flaps, and doesn't mind the
extra weight of ground handling, the LS-4 may be a better choice for
some people.

Of more interest to me, however, is the insurance rates for these
gliders. This is something I'd really like to see a comparison of...

Andreas Maurer wrote:

One solution could be to build the whole glider extremely light (like
the Apis or Sparrowhawk) to get normal wing loadings of about 33
kg/m^2 at a high aspect ratio, but this is going to result in the
inability to carry water, low Vne (hence the comparably bad
penetration of the Apis compared to club class gliders with similar
L/D and wing loading) and questionable crash protection.

The Sparrowhawk and Apis look really good and are definitely state of
the art - but to be honest, I would not like to rely on their cockpit
shell strength when I impact at 50 kts or above.
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd