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