On Apr 23, 12:54*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
Hello all - I've got a question for the competition pilots out the

Imagine you're a budding competition pilot with about 300 hours in
your logbook. *You've done a couple of Sports-class competitions and
find them highly enjoyable. *You begin to make plans to buy a partial
share in a high-end machine in 2010/2011; but then have to change
gears financially and keep costs in check.

Now imagine you've standing in front of two aircraft:
1) A near-mint-condition DG-300 (with auto-hookups, great
instrumentation, and DG's ergonomics and visibility). *The ship has
spent its life in the desert southwest of the USA.

2) A recently-refinished LS-3 (_not_ an "a" model) with good equipment
- but an airframe that's a full 10 years older than the DG. *The ship
has spent its life on the East coast of the USA. *Assume that it is
only $3000 cheaper than the DG-300.

According to some old Idaflieg data, the LS-3 is significantly better
above 60 knots while the DG-300 has a noticeable climb-rate advantage
at slower speeds. *Not sure how accurate the Idaflieg data is, though.

What would _you_ consider to be the better ship to own? *If you owned
one of them, would you sell it to get the other?

Thanks for the assistance,

--Noel

Noel,

John Cochrane makes a good point in his paper "a little faster please"
I don't have it in front of me, but basically he say's the top pilots
will always finish in the top spots even if they flew 20 year old
sailplanes. So save yourself some money and implement the concepts
he's put forth.

Ron sure does well in that LS-3, but, he also did really well in his
LS-1. With the legs the LS-3 has over the LS-1 it is becoming obvious
to all of us that fly with him that indeed it is a big asset. I think
you might want to fly with him and see how the DG-300 compares to the
LS-3.

My 2-cents worth..............coming from a guy who flies a 13m
glider!

Brad