How about the HP-18 (rather than KA-6CR)?

Thanks to all KA-6 pilots responding to my earlier question.
Wayne Paul has kindly sent links to HP websites, suggesting the HP-18 as an
affordable option for the economically-minded flyer. Compared to the wooden
KA-6, the HP-18 has a larger cockpit, is made of metal, structural foam,
composite & glass. All were built from plans. Features a 15m, V-tail,
retractable gear, flaps, water ballast; lay-down pilot position & tailwheel.
Any comments on HP-18's? I certainly haven't enough experience to hop in one
now, but would you recommend the HP-18 to a low-time pilot? (Plenty of room
for caveats). I particularly like one suggestion; practice steep full flaps
landings in a Cessna before first flying the HP-18.
Jim Hultman

Jim,

My suggestion was to take a look at Dick Schreder's sailplanes. I don't
believe that I specifically recommended the HP-18. It is by far the most
controversial model for a low time pilot. Generally HP-18s are not
recommended for a low-time pilot. If you are lucky enough to have a CFIG
who has a lot of time in one of Dick's designs, he/she will know if you have
developed adequate skills. I have not flown a HP-18. I use to own a HP-16
with the same airfoil and currently fly a HP-14.

This forum will provide you a broad range of advice. You will get advice
from experts who have built, owned and competed in HP-18s, and also advice
from people who have never flown a Schreder design. Closely evaluate all
responses (including mine.) Another source of Schreder expertise can be
found on the Yahoo hp-gliders news group
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hp-gliders/)

Earlier this year the Schreder Designs Trading Post
(http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Tr...ding_Post.html) had a
lot of HP-11 listings. Now there are a lot of HP-18s.

One small correction to your post. The HP series were built from kits.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/N990_Near_Arco.jpg



"Jim" wrote in message
news:AyKSg.928$La2.785@fed1read08...
Thanks to all KA-6 pilots responding to my earlier question.
Wayne Paul has kindly sent links to HP websites, suggesting the HP-18 as
an
affordable option for the economically-minded flyer. Compared to the
wooden
KA-6, the HP-18 has a larger cockpit, is made of metal, structural foam,
composite & glass. All were built from plans. Features a 15m, V-tail,
retractable gear, flaps, water ballast; lay-down pilot position &
tailwheel.
Any comments on HP-18's? I certainly haven't enough experience to hop in
one
now, but would you recommend the HP-18 to a low-time pilot? (Plenty of
room
for caveats). I particularly like one suggestion; practice steep full
flaps
landings in a Cessna before first flying the HP-18.
Jim Hultman

You are correct Wayne; I re-read your e-mail & see that you did not
specifically recommend the HP-18 over the other Schreder designs.
I gravitate to the 18 since it is beautiful & appears to be the culmination
of Dick Schreder's design work, & I'm fascinated that such a performer is
available at reasonable cost. The possibly controversial V tail, flaps &
kit-built history of the HP-18 must be contributing factors to it's
affordability on the used market.
Regarding flaps; it's obvious they are a performance enhancement feature, &
worth learning to fly.
Thanks for the great information you've presented; I want to dispel the
notion you might have suggested HP-18 as a first sailplane.
Best Regards,
Jim Hultman
"Wayne Paul" wrote in message
...
Jim,

My suggestion was to take a look at Dick Schreder's sailplanes. I don't
believe that I specifically recommended the HP-18. It is by far the most
controversial model for a low time pilot. Generally HP-18s are not
recommended for a low-time pilot. If you are lucky enough to have a CFIG
who has a lot of time in one of Dick's designs, he/she will know if you
have
developed adequate skills. I have not flown a HP-18. I use to own a
HP-16
with the same airfoil and currently fly a HP-14.

This forum will provide you a broad range of advice. You will get advice
from experts who have built, owned and competed in HP-18s, and also advice
from people who have never flown a Schreder design. Closely evaluate all
responses (including mine.) Another source of Schreder expertise can be
found on the Yahoo hp-gliders news group
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hp-gliders/)

Earlier this year the Schreder Designs Trading Post
(http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Tr...ding_Post.html) had
a
lot of HP-11 listings. Now there are a lot of HP-18s.

One small correction to your post. The HP series were built from kits.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/N990_Near_Arco.jpg



"Jim" wrote in message
news:AyKSg.928$La2.785@fed1read08...
Thanks to all KA-6 pilots responding to my earlier question.
Wayne Paul has kindly sent links to HP websites, suggesting the HP-18 as
an
affordable option for the economically-minded flyer. Compared to the
wooden
KA-6, the HP-18 has a larger cockpit, is made of metal, structural
foam,
composite & glass. All were built from plans. Features a 15m, V-tail,
retractable gear, flaps, water ballast; lay-down pilot position &
tailwheel.
Any comments on HP-18's? I certainly haven't enough experience to hop in
one
now, but would you recommend the HP-18 to a low-time pilot? (Plenty of
room
for caveats). I particularly like one suggestion; practice steep full
flaps
landings in a Cessna before first flying the HP-18.
Jim Hultman

I fly a PIK-20B. It has flaps and no spoilers like the '18. I also have
time in a Schweizer 1-35, again, flaps and no spoilers. I prefer that
configuration to a spoiler ship. You must get used to the landings, but
it's a quick transition. Take a high tow and keep the airspeed at 60
several times while moving the flaps fully down. This will give you the
attitude picture for final. At touchdown, remove all positive flap and
go to full negative. That will keep your aileron effectiveness through
the landing roll. By the way, the flare is accomplished by easing off
the forward pressure rather than actually pulling the stick back...
depending on how much flap is cranked in. Just my opinion, but an '18
isn't really a low time pilot's ship. If you had time in a 1-35 or a
PIK, I'd say go for it if it's built well. I was looking for a good one
when I found my PIK.

Jack Womack

Hi JIm,

You can search previous HP-18 threads on this group. There is quite a
bit of useful information here already.

Mike


Jim wrote:
Thanks to all KA-6 pilots responding to my earlier question.
Wayne Paul has kindly sent links to HP websites, suggesting the HP-18 as an
affordable option for the economically-minded flyer. Compared to the wooden
KA-6, the HP-18 has a larger cockpit, is made of metal, structural foam,
composite & glass. All were built from plans. Features a 15m, V-tail,
retractable gear, flaps, water ballast; lay-down pilot position & tailwheel.
Any comments on HP-18's? I certainly haven't enough experience to hop in one
now, but would you recommend the HP-18 to a low-time pilot? (Plenty of room
for caveats). I particularly like one suggestion; practice steep full flaps
landings in a Cessna before first flying the HP-18.
Jim Hultman

No experience of the HP18, but having responded to the initial K6Cr post
it occurs to me that there are a number of other wooden gliders you
could consider if you won't fit in a K6.

Top of my list would be the SZD 30 Pirat. This is wood like the K6Cr,
but higher performance, roughly comparable to the K6e. Here in the UK
they go for similar money to a K6Cr.

Plus points:
* roomy cockpit, hinged canopy
* good handling (though K6s are even better)
* a nice, solid skid for landing in rough fields
* very powerful airbrakes
* shorter trailer (see wing below)

Minus points:
* three piece wing (centre section + tips) which makes rigging a bit
heavier than, say, a K6. Make trestles. However, this means the trailer
need only be as long as the fuselage.
* being Polish, stall and spin are sharper than a K6 though with plenty
of warning, and recovery is very precise. Some, including me, wouldn't
think this anything of a minus point. The K6 spins very nicely too.
* like all wooden gliders, penetration XC into anything much of a
headwind is a slow process.

If I were giving up my Open Cirrus for a 15m wooden glider, my list in
order would be:

K6E
SZD30 Pirat
(Possibly SZD 36 Cobra, though it's retractable and I gather a small
cockpit)
K6Cr




Jim wrote:
Thanks to all KA-6 pilots responding to my earlier question.
Wayne Paul has kindly sent links to HP websites, suggesting the HP-18 as an
affordable option for the economically-minded flyer. Compared to the wooden
KA-6, the HP-18 has a larger cockpit, is made of metal, structural foam,
composite & glass. All were built from plans. Features a 15m, V-tail,
retractable gear, flaps, water ballast; lay-down pilot position & tailwheel.
Any comments on HP-18's? I certainly haven't enough experience to hop in one
now, but would you recommend the HP-18 to a low-time pilot? (Plenty of room
for caveats). I particularly like one suggestion; practice steep full flaps
landings in a Cessna before first flying the HP-18.
Jim Hultman

Since you're expanding your options, please consider a Pilatus B-4. Perhaps
the best built all metal sailplane around. Very acrobatic, no bad habits,
easy to keep tied out so you can hop in and go.


"Jim" wrote in message
news:AyKSg.928$La2.785@fed1read08...
Thanks to all KA-6 pilots responding to my earlier question.
Wayne Paul has kindly sent links to HP websites, suggesting the HP-18 as
an
affordable option for the economically-minded flyer. Compared to the
wooden
KA-6, the HP-18 has a larger cockpit, is made of metal, structural foam,
composite & glass. All were built from plans. Features a 15m, V-tail,
retractable gear, flaps, water ballast; lay-down pilot position &
tailwheel.
Any comments on HP-18's? I certainly haven't enough experience to hop in
one
now, but would you recommend the HP-18 to a low-time pilot? (Plenty of
room
for caveats). I particularly like one suggestion; practice steep full
flaps
landings in a Cessna before first flying the HP-18.
Jim Hultman

Jim wrote:
Thanks to all KA-6 pilots responding to my earlier question.
Wayne Paul has kindly sent links to HP websites, suggesting the HP-18 as an
affordable option for the economically-minded flyer.

I have a friend who got an HP-18 as his first ship. He had something
like 50 hours total time, and no time in a flapped ship. His first few
landings were interesting, but he did OK. It was his experienced CFIG
partner who bent the ship.

My first ship was an HP-11. I think I had about 20 hours in gliders
when I bought it, but I also had about 300-400 hours in power. The
first landing was interesting only because I took the advice of another
pilot that didn't make too much sense to me. After that, no problem.
I've sort of faded out of soaring (the commercial operation became
untenable, and I don't love soaring enough to put up with being in a
club) so if you want mine, you can have it cheap.

I particularly like one suggestion; practice steep full flaps
landings in a Cessna before first flying the HP-18.

A Cessna 150 is far more demanding to land that any glider I have ever
flown, including the HP-11 - and it's probably the least demanding of
the two-seat primary trainers.

Realistically, if you want to get into an HP now, you can. The major
advantage of going that route - it's cheap, and being all metal you can
leave it tied down outside. The major disadvantage - it doesn't fly
like most gliders. Of course if you don't have much experience flying
gliders, that's not terribly important. Thus the glider-only pilots
who had a lot of hours when they first flew one will say it's not for
the inexperienced pilot - because they found it challenging. My HP-11
actually used to be a club ship years ago, and student pilots flew it.
As long as you get a solid briefing from someone who has flown one a
while, you will probably be fine.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
Jim wrote:

My first ship was an HP-11. I think I had about 20 hours in gliders
when I bought it, but I also had about 300-400 hours in power. The
first landing was interesting only because I took the advice of another
pilot that didn't make too much sense to me. After that, no problem.
I've sort of faded out of soaring (the commercial operation became
untenable, and I don't love soaring enough to put up with being in a
club) so if you want mine, you can have it cheap.


Michael,

If you want to list your HP-11 for sale I will be happy to place it on my
site.

I am only aware of two HP-11s owned by a person named Michael. Is your
HP-11
N821Z (http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-11/N821Z.html),
N95EZ (http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-11/N821Z.html), or some other
one?

Email me directly if you want to list your HP-11, or would like pictures of
it added to my site.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

Michael wrote:
I have a friend who got an HP-18 as his first ship. He had something
like 50 hours total time, and no time in a flapped ship. His first few
landings were interesting, but he did OK. It was his experienced CFIG
partner who bent the ship.

I had 20 hours total flying *anything* when I first flew my RS-15.
Thanks to information from the HP group everything went just fine. And
continues to. The very robust oleo strut landing gear is nice to have
when you make an "interesting" landing. ;-)

The major disadvantage [ of an HP glider]- it doesn't fly
like most gliders.

I would say that about the only time it "doesn't fly like most gliders"
is when landing. Glide path control is flaps only, no spoilers. Many
consider this to be an advantage. But it is personal preference I'm
sure. I can say that with an HP I've never forgotten to hook up the
spoilers and I've never had the spoilers accidentally deploy.

From a builder's perspective for the HP kits: 1) No spoilers makes for
an easier build. 2) The V-tail makes for an easier build (just make
two identical parts, except mirror-imaged). 1) and 2) assume the
builder is constructing the wings and tail using a metal-skin built-up
technique, not using molded glass parts.

Regards,

-Doug