Cross Country Sailplanes: In the Flatland

I'm not a frequent reader of rec.aviation.soaring, so at the risk of
asking a common question, I'll pose my question. I fly cross country here
in the meaty middle (cheesy middle? ) part of the US-- mostly Wisconsin,
often Minnesota, sometimes Iowa, Illinois, South Dakota, Michigan. I often
land off-field (in 50 cross country flights, or attempts, I've landed
off-field on 26 flights).

While landing off-field seems to be a downside for some pilots, I take it
as just a natural part of aggressively flying cross country. Of course, I
fly in a part of the world where this is often possible. There are usually
fields with low crops or cut hay fields in good abundance in this part of
the US. And, for whatever reason, I've had very good experiences with
farmers!

I want to change ships. Presently, I fly a Schweizer 1-35. While I enjoy
the heck out of flying this ship, and have it pimped out just right , I
have reached max gross weight on the ship, and want to add more toys. For
example, I want to take my ship out West to do some mountain flying, and
thus need to add an O2 system. While some people decide to fly over max
gross weight, I don't choose to do so.

My budget is in the same range as the cost of a Schweizer 1-35 (around 20K
US dollars). I don't particlarly feel the need to go up in L/D
performance. My thought is while that would give me longer legs, my
soaring enjoyment largely comes from challenging myself to the next
longest flight in my current ship-- I don't see the need for more than
35:1 or so. I'd rather work on my skills than add L/D to my ship.

I think a 15-meter ship is best for my flying. While there are many nice
ships with longer spans, I have landed at relatively narrow private
airfields. I don't know if a span winder than 15-m would fit. Plus, I
often like to pull off of an asphalt runway, between landing lights, to
give way to traffic. I'd rather not do that with longer wings.

So, given this wing span (15-m), budget range (20K-ish), and this
performance range (35:1-ish), and my frequency of landing off-field, and
my need to have enough gross weight for a reasonable equipment load
(normal glider instruments, plus transponder, dual batteries, off-field
landing kit, O2 system, GPS etc) what's the best ship?

My thoughts right now have put a priority on a T-tailed ship, and one that
sits up really high on the gear. Perhaps I should state: top-wing-only dive
brakes too. A T-tail ship should keep the horizontal stabilizer away from
any crops, and the same rationale applies to the dive brakes. Having the
ship sit up really high on the gear helps not only with the crop, but any
furrows in the field, to reduce scraping on the buttom of the hull, and
gear doors.

Within my price range a Jantar Standard seems to fit these criteria. The
DG-100/101 from what I've read, can be fitted with an extra large wheel.
That might be a good option though, though I'm not sure how much larger
that extra large wheel can be, and how much higher it makes the ship sit
(I need to contact DG).

Thoughts?

Thanks, and Safe Soaring!
Chris.

Chris Prince wrote:
Snip
I want to change ships. Presently, I fly a Schweizer 1-35.
Snip...
I have reached max gross weight on the ship, and want to add more toys.
Snip...
My budget is in the same range as the cost of a Schweizer 1-35 (around 20K
US dollars). I don't particlarly feel the need to go up in L/D
performance.
Snip...
I think a 15-meter ship is best for my flying.
Snip...
My thoughts right now have put a priority on a T-tailed ship, and one that
sits up really high on the gear. Perhaps I should state: top-wing-only dive
brakes too.
Snip...
Within my price range a Jantar Standard seems to fit these criteria.
Snip
Thoughts?

Given that you've already crossed to the dark side (i.e.
large-deflection landing flaps), you've just described an unmodified
Zuni I (Zuni II's sit lower). and a Slingsby Vega. (And, Wil Schuemann's
former AS W-12 in its 15-meter form...which lacks dive brakes
altogether, relying on two drag 'chutes.)

Finding taller-geared ships will be difficult.

The Zuni (with large ballast tanks) flies at wing loadings of ~5.5
psf-~11 psf. I can never remember if its gross weight is 1100 pounds or
1200 pounds; empty weight with an O2 system will be under 700 pounds.
It'll easily fall within your price range, too.

Regards,
Bob W.

[Snip]


Given that you've already crossed to the dark side (i.e.
large-deflection landing flaps), you've just described an unmodified
Zuni I (Zuni II's sit lower). and a Slingsby Vega. (And, Wil
Schuemann's
former AS W-12 in its 15-meter form...which lacks dive brakes
altogether, relying on two drag 'chutes.)

Finding taller-geared ships will be difficult.

The Zuni (with large ballast tanks) flies at wing loadings of ~5.5
psf-~11 psf. I can never remember if its gross weight is 1100 pounds or

1200 pounds; empty weight with an O2 system will be under 700 pounds.
It'll easily fall within your price range, too.

Regards,
Bob W.


Many Thanks Bob! I've found some pictures of the Slingsby Vega-- it does
sit up really well on the gear! Drool . I'll look for some pictures of
the Zuni sitting on its gear.

Chris.

On Aug 9, 6:45*pm, Chris Prince wrote:
I'm not a frequent reader of rec.aviation.soaring, so at the risk of
asking a common question, I'll pose my question. I fly cross country here
in the meaty middle (cheesy middle? ) part of the US-- mostly Wisconsin,
often Minnesota, sometimes Iowa, Illinois, South Dakota, Michigan. I often
land off-field (in 50 cross country flights, or attempts, I've landed
off-field on 26 flights).

While landing off-field seems to be a downside for some pilots, I take it
as just a natural part of aggressively flying cross country. Of course, I
fly in a part of the world where this is often possible. There are usually
fields with low crops or cut hay fields in good abundance in this part of
the US. And, for whatever reason, I've had very good experiences with
farmers!

I want to change ships. Presently, I fly a Schweizer 1-35. While I enjoy
the heck out of flying this ship, and have it pimped out just right , I
have reached max gross weight on the ship, and want to add more toys. For
example, I want to take my ship out West to do some mountain flying, and
thus need to add an O2 system. While some people decide to fly over max
gross weight, I don't choose to do so.

My budget is in the same range as the cost of a Schweizer 1-35 (around 20K
US dollars). I don't particlarly feel the need to go up in L/D
performance. My thought is while that would give me longer legs, my
soaring enjoyment largely comes from challenging myself to the next
longest flight in my current ship-- I don't see the need for more than
35:1 or so. I'd rather work on my skills than add L/D to my ship.

I think a 15-meter ship is best for my flying. While there are many nice
ships with longer spans, I have landed at relatively narrow private
airfields. I don't know if a span winder than 15-m would fit. Plus, I
often like to pull off of an asphalt runway, between landing lights, to
give way to traffic. I'd rather not do that with longer wings.

So, given this wing span (15-m), budget range (20K-ish), and this
performance range (35:1-ish), and my frequency of landing off-field, and
my need to have enough gross weight for a reasonable equipment load
(normal glider instruments, plus transponder, dual batteries, off-field
landing kit, O2 system, GPS etc) what's the best ship?

My thoughts right now have put a priority on a T-tailed ship, and one that
sits up really high on the gear. Perhaps I should state: top-wing-only dive
brakes too. A T-tail ship should keep the horizontal stabilizer away from
any crops, and the same rationale applies to the dive brakes. Having the
ship sit up really high on the gear helps not only with the crop, but any
furrows in the field, to reduce scraping on the buttom of the hull, and
gear doors.

Within my price range a Jantar Standard seems to fit these criteria. The
DG-100/101 from what I've read, can be fitted with an extra large wheel.
That might be a good option though, though I'm not sure how much larger
that extra large wheel can be, and how much higher it makes the ship sit
(I need to contact DG).

Thoughts?

Thanks, and Safe Soaring!
Chris.

Std Jantar 2 sits tall on the gear and is pretty honest about 1/40,
better than the DG100/101. DG has a bit nicer handling with
parallelogram stick, but loses on performance. Very strong though.

Payload should be okay. Have you seen Adam's Jantar?

PIK-20B if you want a bit more performance and landing flaps. They
may be hard to rig after the temp exceeds 70F or so.

EDS with composite tank won't add much weight to either and will
lighten your wallet a bit.

Frank Whiteley

On Aug 9, 9:15*pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Aug 9, 6:45*pm, Chris Prince wrote:



I'm not a frequent reader of rec.aviation.soaring, so at the risk of
asking a common question, I'll pose my question. I fly cross country here
in the meaty middle (cheesy middle? ) part of the US-- mostly Wisconsin,
often Minnesota, sometimes Iowa, Illinois, South Dakota, Michigan. I often
land off-field (in 50 cross country flights, or attempts, I've landed
off-field on 26 flights).

While landing off-field seems to be a downside for some pilots, I take it
as just a natural part of aggressively flying cross country. Of course, I
fly in a part of the world where this is often possible. There are usually
fields with low crops or cut hay fields in good abundance in this part of
the US. And, for whatever reason, I've had very good experiences with
farmers!

I want to change ships. Presently, I fly a Schweizer 1-35. While I enjoy
the heck out of flying this ship, and have it pimped out just right , I
have reached max gross weight on the ship, and want to add more toys. For
example, I want to take my ship out West to do some mountain flying, and
thus need to add an O2 system. While some people decide to fly over max
gross weight, I don't choose to do so.

My budget is in the same range as the cost of a Schweizer 1-35 (around 20K
US dollars). I don't particlarly feel the need to go up in L/D
performance. My thought is while that would give me longer legs, my
soaring enjoyment largely comes from challenging myself to the next
longest flight in my current ship-- I don't see the need for more than
35:1 or so. I'd rather work on my skills than add L/D to my ship.

I think a 15-meter ship is best for my flying. While there are many nice
ships with longer spans, I have landed at relatively narrow private
airfields. I don't know if a span winder than 15-m would fit. Plus, I
often like to pull off of an asphalt runway, between landing lights, to
give way to traffic. I'd rather not do that with longer wings.

So, given this wing span (15-m), budget range (20K-ish), and this
performance range (35:1-ish), and my frequency of landing off-field, and
my need to have enough gross weight for a reasonable equipment load
(normal glider instruments, plus transponder, dual batteries, off-field
landing kit, O2 system, GPS etc) what's the best ship?

My thoughts right now have put a priority on a T-tailed ship, and one that
sits up really high on the gear. Perhaps I should state: top-wing-only dive
brakes too. A T-tail ship should keep the horizontal stabilizer away from
any crops, and the same rationale applies to the dive brakes. Having the
ship sit up really high on the gear helps not only with the crop, but any
furrows in the field, to reduce scraping on the buttom of the hull, and
gear doors.

Within my price range a Jantar Standard seems to fit these criteria. The
DG-100/101 from what I've read, can be fitted with an extra large wheel..
That might be a good option though, though I'm not sure how much larger
that extra large wheel can be, and how much higher it makes the ship sit
(I need to contact DG).

Thoughts?

Thanks, and Safe Soaring!
Chris.

Std Jantar 2 sits tall on the gear and is pretty honest about 1/40,
better than the DG100/101. *DG has a bit nicer handling with
parallelogram stick, but loses on performance. *Very strong though.

Payload should be okay. *Have you seen Adam's Jantar?

PIK-20B if you want a bit more performance and landing flaps. *They
may be hard to rig after the temp exceeds 70F or so.

EDS with composite tank won't add much weight to either and will
lighten your wallet a bit.

Frank Whiteley

Hi Frank,

Chris was down at my field a couple of weeks ago and helped me rig up.
He briefly owned a Jantar Standard 1 that was hit by a storm while
tied down in the trailer - I'll let him fill you in on the ugly
details...

I would like to note that the figures listed in the sailplane
directory for the Jantar's sink rate is for the fully-ballasted
condition and are not representative when it is flown dry.

/Adam

[Snip]

Std Jantar 2 sits tall on the gear and is pretty honest about 1/40,
better than the DG100/101. DG has a bit nicer handling with
parallelogram stick, but loses on performance. Very strong though.

Payload should be okay. Have you seen Adam's Jantar?

PIK-20B if you want a bit more performance and landing flaps. They
may be hard to rig after the temp exceeds 70F or so.

EDS with composite tank won't add much weight to either and will
lighten your wallet a bit.

Frank Whiteley



Thanks for your thoughts, Frank! (I'm not quite understanding the "EDS
with composite tank" part of this though.)

Chris.

"Chris Prince" wrote in message ...
[Snip]

Thanks for your thoughts, Frank! (I'm not quite understanding the "EDS
with composite tank" part of this though.)

Chris,

Frank is referring to the Mountain High oxygen system. They have created a light weight Kevlar O2 tanks.
http://www.mhoxygen.com/

Wayne
HP14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/

[Snip]

Std Jantar 2 sits tall on the gear and is pretty honest about 1/40,
better than the DG100/101. DG has a bit nicer handling with
parallelogram stick, but loses on performance. Very strong though.

Payload should be okay. Have you seen Adam's Jantar?

PIK-20B if you want a bit more performance and landing flaps. They
may be hard to rig after the temp exceeds 70F or so.

EDS with composite tank won't add much weight to either and will
lighten your wallet a bit.

Frank Whiteley



Thanks for your thoughts, Frank! (I'm not quite understanding the "EDS
with composite tank" part of this though.)

Chris.

Thanks for your thoughts, Frank! (I'm not quite understanding the
"EDS
with composite tank" part of this though.)

Chris.

http://www.mhoxygen.com/ the EDS O2 system reduces your tank size by
a factor of 3 (http://www.mhoxygen.com/images/Duration-Chart.pdf) for
the same given amount of man hour usage over a standard constant flow
regulator, and a composite tank (carbon or kevlar wrapped aluminum
cylinder) is very light compared to a steel cylinder, but neither are
cheap, although it may be a cheaper option to install a $1200-$1500
oxy system in your plane you have rather than buying a new plane to
install around a cheaper oxy system.

If you have a forward hinged 1-35, by switching back to a removable
canopy, you will gain much usable cockpit load... I'm sure any 1-35
driver with a non-hinged canopy would be happy to trade. Of course
this is of no help if you are really just rationalizing buying a new
ship (which there is nothing wrong with of course, and incidentally no
cure for either- other than a new ship

-Paul

sisu1a wrote:


http://www.mhoxygen.com/ the EDS O2 system reduces your tank size by
a factor of 3 (http://www.mhoxygen.com/images/Duration-Chart.pdf) for
the same given amount of man hour usage over a standard constant flow
regulator, and a composite tank (carbon or kevlar wrapped aluminum
cylinder) is very light compared to a steel cylinder,

Aluminum cylinders are readily available, and much lower cost than the
composite wrapped cylinders. A 22 cubic foot (626 liters) aluminum
cylinder weighs about 8.5 pounds; the closed equivlaent Kevlar wrapped
cylinder weighs 4 pounds. You pay a lot for the 4.5 pound savings.

I do use and recommend the Mountain High EDS-O2D1 controller (it's not
just the oxygen savings, but the automatic operation and warnings it
provides). My 13 cubic foot aluminum bottle lasts approximately one hour
per 100 psi of bottle pressure when flying in the 14,000-18,000 range at
places like Ely, Parowan, and Minden. Practically speaking, that's about
3 flights off a full (~2000 psi) bottle, and the bottles are cheap
enough to own two, so I always have a full spare ready to go in the trailer.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* Sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org