The ravages of time?

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!

Argh!

Do you think they affect flapped
gliders any differently than standard-class gliders?

NO – They are all built with the same techniques.

seeing aging gelcoat,

The nicer the finish, the more $$ you'll have to pay.

surface corrosion on metal bits

This should be to a minimum, but realize that any thing more than a
few days out of the factory will have some chipped paint.

worn-out cockpit interiors,

if it’s not new, the interior will be scuffed. Parachute buckles
make all kinds of marks. An interior is easy to fix, it’s purely
cosmetic and does not affect the performance of the sailplane.

You have missed the most important factor in the equation. That’s
the pilots ability to make the sailplane perform. I will guarantee
you that you will not notice a 10% difference in a “old” sailplane vs
the exact same model factory new. Your piloting skills will mask any
difference. One extra turn at the top of the thermal, a slightly
poor choice of track, flying to slow or to fast at any given moment
or even taking to many thermals will affect your ultimate XC ability
by 50% or more. Relax on the details, any of the models that you
have considered are good. The entire package is more important than
the specifics. A functional trailer, good working instruments that
you understand and a dependable electrical system in any sailplane you
fly will do.

The point is to get out and fly. Last weekend at Ephrata is a good
example. Even if you didn’t bring your own ship out, the soaring was
exceptional. 3 club ships were tied down and unused all weekend.
What a waste. I flew almost 12 hours in 2 days. Saturday had nice
thermals with wave over the Cu to 18,000 feet. Sunday’s cloudbase
was around 12,000 feet with almost everybody doing 500 km and some
well over 600 km. A low time pilot is always the weak point in the
equation. Maybe you should spend less money on the fiberglass and
more on your training. Buy a ride with Karl Striedeck at any of the
contest he flies. Doug Jacobs also offers rides. Gavin Wills gives
great XC instruction in the west. There are many choices and they
are all good.

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

You really have to decide on your desires and flying habits to make
the right choice for you.

If you are buying a racing plane then you look for best L/D at higher
speeds and something you can be comfortable in for long flights and
turbulence with a chute on and finish will be important.

That implies that youwant the Gelcoat is in great shape as age does
tend to take its toll on that and fixing it is very expensive.

If you just like soaring around then top notch performance is not
critical and you can tolerate an older less perfect wing surface and
you would probably be looking for best Min sink figures as opposed to
best L/D in that case.

If you dont like rigging and want to leave the plane tied out then you
need a metal plane like a Schreder HP which can be left out in the
elements all season long.

The thing with the surface is the Laminar flow airfoils on modern
gliders....smooth is better.

I would say the most important single thing is comfort as the goal is
to stay up and have fun flying all day, likely, especially since tows
are getting rather expensive with the rising fuel prices.

In the end you have to decide for yourself what is most important, but
yes, older surfaces have a slightly negative effect on the
performance, not that you would ever notice it though.

My 2 cents,

Ray


On Jun 16, 9:36*pm, "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!

noel.wade wrote:
OK All,

Snip...

How detrimental to performance are the effects of time on a glider?
How high is up?

I'm talking about things like roughened gelcoat, flat-spots on the
wing-skin by the spar-caps, etc.
What others have already said...

A quote attributed to Dick Johnson: "Air has fingers but no eyes." Of
*course* surface finish affects air flow, both theoretically and
practically...but whether Joe Pilot actually can detect it is why God
invented beer and fellow pilots.
- - - - - -

Do you think they affect flapped
gliders any differently than standard-class gliders?

Snip...

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?

Step back and juxtapose your first question immediately above with your
'overreacting' question and ponder the twain with reflective humor.

As for life-threatening airflow changes due to age-related surface
changes, according to the FAA, frost on wings kills, while according to
the NTSB, takeoffs in DC-9's with retracted slats does too. Yet
airplanes routinely fly with ice on their wings, and with retracted
slats AND flaps. Magic?

Regarding age-related composite woes, how many examples of composite
gliders can anyone point to that came apart because their fiber/resin
matrix got tired?

Continuing the ponderation of age-related woes, how many metal bits in
airplanes and gliders have gotten tired due to age? (Correct answer:
lots [infinitely?] more than f/r matrices. The good news is, metal bits
are [on sailplanes] generally straightforwardly visually inspectable.)
- - - - - -

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?

There are older (in time) composite gliders than the one I've been
flying since 1981 (and which was built in 1977), and many of them
probably look much better than mine does today, simply because I'm one
who figures looks on a sailplane do about as much good as an appendix.
(Hey...the philosophy works for me. My priorities tend to be:
structural integrity; superbly functioning netto, 'other stuff'...)

There is no such thing (IMHO) as the perfect sailplane...or anything
else, for that matter. Perfection is not an option. Perfection is -
however - the enemy of good enough. Know yourself, make your best
attempt to understand how you expect/hope to be expanding your soaring
skills in the next few years, don't allow your fantasies of 'setting the
soaring world afire' to overwhelm the realities of where you are on
soaring's infinite learning palette, purchase accordingly and you'll
have years of rewarding soaring flight in your immediate future!

Respectfully,
Bob W.

Condition matters, but it's usually more an economic factor than
performance. Removing/refinishing bad gel coat costs much more than
you will likely get from the glider when you sell it. It's better to
buy a glider with gel coat that will last for a while. Upgrading
instruments can be expensive, depending on how far you want to go.
Trailers deteriorate, too, with some known for having weak points
(e.g., late 70s Komets where the axle attachment points fail and the
axle pushes the floor up) though those problems can usually be fixed
with a modest expenditure of time and/or money.

Some glider finishes do seem to deteriorate faster than others but
you'll already be able to see what's good and what's not in a glider
that's 20 years old. Some will have been refinished once. Some may
have done better than others: e.g., those with a painted finish (e.g.,
PIK 20) and DG.

As concerns performance, some gliders do suffer more than others from
airfoil inaccuracies: the section used on the PIK 20/Mosquito/Nimbus 2/
LS-3 and others is an example. The LS-3 (which I owned) develops flat
spots where the spar cap shrinks; if not filled, the high-speed cruise
is affected though the climb is still good. The wing on the ASW 24
(which I own now; not on your final list, I know, but a superb value),
on the other hand, seems absolutely timeless regarding waviness.

Regarding pilot height, the parachute and torso/leg length ratio can
have an enormous influence. I'm 6'3" (191 cm) with, apparently, a
relatively long torso. I need a chute that's very thin behind the
shoulders so I can recline as far as possible. Most chutes are
constant thickness. Before you cross off a glider from your list, try
different parachutes first. Try to borrow a Softie Wedge or Strong
backpack, and I think National now makes a similar one that's thin at
the top.

Don't get obsessed with performance. As others have said, piloting
counts for a lot more. Buying a sailplane IS a major investment so
approach it that way: think "value" and resale and you'll be fine.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

Don't believe all that crap you read above. You're being a WUSS.
Gliders are like women. You fall in love with it from the outside in.
Mortgage everything to get that special one. So you work at Taco Bell
(at night) to make up the difference. Not since Wilbur first flew has
anyone ever said "I should have waited to buy my first glider" and
everyone regrets not buying sooner.
Welcome to the club, "sweetie".
R

On Jun 17, 9:00*am, " wrote:

anyone ever said "I should have waited to buy my first glider" and
everyone regrets not buying sooner.
Welcome to the club, "sweetie".
R

R -

Too late, I already bought my first glider a year ago. She's a bit
ugly, but I've ridden her hard and she rides well (Russia AC-4). Did
165km on Sunday in 2-4 knot lift, below 4000 ft most of the day... not
bad for stubby wings and only flying gliders for a year, if I do say
so myself... :-)

BTW, I've *never* seen an ASW-24 come up for sale online in the nearly
2 years I've been on the market... They must be good; but they're
hard to find!

The issue with the performance is that I feel like I'm already
outgrowing my Russia after just a year of flying it - and I'd hate to
feel that way about a standard-class ship after a couple of years
(whereas a flapped ship will have a steeper learning curve which - as
a twisted wierdo obsessed pilot - I like).

But the tide of opinion here and in my club is carrying me along
towards buying the less-expensive glider with the better finish and
known resale value - even if its unflapped and has a higher (i.e.
worse) handicap... I'm not a racer, I just want to feel like I'm
maximizing the day's opportunities and make some decent distances in
our relatively weak conditions here in Seattle. I'll fly in the
desert a few times a year; but I started out thinking that ergonomics,
safety, and maneuverability are the important factors - and it seems
that I'm being guided back around to that mode of thinking by all of
you. Ya gotta admit, though, performance is a seductive mistress!

And now that people know the glider I want is for sale, I'd better
hustle! :-P

--Noel

Noel, its better than a mistress. For once you'll feel like a
millionaire. Not wishing, but doing. Hell, you'll probably do a 1000K
the first week. The thermals are all stronger, you'll fly like
superman, and the women will flock to see the new Ace. I'm not sure
which way you swing, but if you have a wife, she'll appear 20 years
younger and worship the ground you walk. And if you get real good,
she'll let you go to contest, "alone", like all the big boys are
doing now. If you can fly that Russia lawn dart 185km, you're
practically world champion already.
And Noel, don't buy a flapped ship, you'll just get the handles mixed
up and clip some trees.
R

Don't concern yourself with flaps. You have lots to learn about weather,
strategy, finesse, subtlety. Lots of top pilots fly standard class. A
good, used standard class machine will help you learn, allow you to make
mistakes, dings, and scratches, and after you have spent five years with
it you might be ready to get something shiny and new. That way you will
be less likely to scratch it up.

At 22:22 17 June 2008, noel.wade wrote:
On Jun 17, 9:00=A0am, " wrote:

anyone ever said "I should have waited to buy my first glider" and
everyone regrets not buying sooner.
Welcome to the club, "sweetie".
R

R -

Too late, I already bought my first glider a year ago. She's a bit
ugly, but I've ridden her hard and she rides well (Russia AC-4). Did
165km on Sunday in 2-4 knot lift, below 4000 ft most of the day... not
bad for stubby wings and only flying gliders for a year, if I do say
so myself... :-)

BTW, I've *never* seen an ASW-24 come up for sale online in the nearly
2 years I've been on the market... They must be good; but they're
hard to find!

The issue with the performance is that I feel like I'm already
outgrowing my Russia after just a year of flying it - and I'd hate to
feel that way about a standard-class ship after a couple of years
(whereas a flapped ship will have a steeper learning curve which - as
a twisted wierdo obsessed pilot - I like).

But the tide of opinion here and in my club is carrying me along
towards buying the less-expensive glider with the better finish and
known resale value - even if its unflapped and has a higher (i.e.
worse) handicap... I'm not a racer, I just want to feel like I'm
maximizing the day's opportunities and make some decent distances in
our relatively weak conditions here in Seattle. I'll fly in the
desert a few times a year; but I started out thinking that ergonomics,
safety, and maneuverability are the important factors - and it seems
that I'm being guided back around to that mode of thinking by all of
you. Ya gotta admit, though, performance is a seductive mistress!

And now that people know the glider I want is for sale, I'd better
hustle! :-P

--Noel