At 08:42 13 May 2014, krasw wrote:
On Sunday, 11 May 2014 21:44:07 UTC+3, wrote:
Hi,
=20
=20
=20
I am looking for any advice as to which had a higher performance out of
t=
hese two gliders. I realise it will be pretty similar as they have the
same=
handicap, but anything you can tell me such as:
=20
Strong vs weak conditions?
=20
How well does each carry water?
=20
Anything else you can offer.
=20
=20
=20
I realise they are hard to compare as they are from different classes.
=20
=20
=20
Thanks
=20
RB

I've flown over 500 hrs both (Discus b/WL and ASW20 "A"). Performance is
pr=
etty much the same. If you fly a lot without water ballast, ASW goes
better=
in strong conditions. Discus can be ballasted to 70kg more so that evens
i=
t out (fully ballasted ASW20 climbs better, though). Both suffer from
rain
=
and bugs. ASW is a bit more complex because of flaps, but it is nicer to
fl=
y and accelerates better, plus you can land it in tighter spot. With
Discus=
you have to get used to thermalling with controls crossed (it requires
cou=
nter-aileron when turning). Directional stability is better in Discus
(more=
so with winglets), with ASW you have to be more sensitive with rudder.
Bot=
h have roomy cockpits, back rest can be removed for long pilots.

Discus is much easier to rig, ASW has heavier wings and manual
connections.=
*This is the only part where you notice the Discus is newer generation*.
O=
riginal gelcoat is probably long gone in both of them. You can put jet
engi=
ne to ASW, but on the other hand buy a used Turbo Discus.

I have had water system issues both with Discus (those leaking S-H
valves..=
..) and ASW (leaking bag). Minor things.

Both are very good gliders, but ASW gives you same performance little bit
c=
heaper.


Agree with all of the above, based on a fair amount of experience in both.
the only thing I would add is that, at more or less equal wing-loadings,
the ASW20 starts to do considerably better as you get above 80 - 90 knots.