Forgiving sailplanes

On 7/20/2010 12:24 PM, bildan wrote:
On Jul 20, 8:35 am, EvValentin808
wrote:

Can anyone give me a list of forgiving sailplanes out there. I know some
like the Schweizers, Rudolf Kaiser's designs(Schleicher K-series) and
the Discus... Any other to list?

--
EvValentin808

No doubt this thread will have a long run.

My view is that all gliders are 'forgiving' - if flown by a qualified
pilot. OTOH, unqualified pilots can wreck any glider no matter how
'forgiving'.

In any event, 'forgiving' handling qualities has little to do with the
safety of the pilot. Any glider, no matter how 'forgiving' can be
flown into a very unforgiving Earth. They will still collide with
mountains and other gliders. Trees and other obstacles can still
wreck them. The number of accidents with poor handling qualities as
the primary cause is virtually non-existent.


I don't agree at all. A qualified pilot can compensate for "unforgiving"
qualities, but that doesn't make the glider "forgiving". Some gliders
have very poor glide path control, some spin easily, with little
warning, and don't recover quickly. Put the CG too far aft, and most
gliders are likely not "forgiving".

Even a qualified pilot can be distracted, or tired, or hypoxic, or
dehydrated, and the outcome is likely to be much better in a "forgiving"
glider than one that isn't. The "forgiveness" difference between an
early Std Cirrus and any LS4 is an important one, as an example. Or
between an ASK 21 and a Nimbus 4D.
What's REALLY unforgiving is nature. Make enough mistakes and 'ol
Mother Nature will kill or maim you. She's merciless. Her goal is
just cleaning the gene pool.

I don't think the "Mother Nature" is the main factor in most glider
accidents. Look at how many happen near the airport and in good weather.
So, forget handling qualities and worry about flying skills. They're
FAR more important.


There is no reason at all to "forget about" something that you can buy
and have it work for you every time you fly. Get a glider that won't
surprise you, even if you make a mistake, get the flying skills you need
to handle it, and work constantly on the judgment that will keep you out
of bad situations.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On Jul 20, 1:59*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 7/20/2010 12:24 PM, bildan wrote:





On Jul 20, 8:35 am, EvValentin808
*wrote:

Can anyone give me a list of forgiving sailplanes out there. I know some
like the Schweizers, *Rudolf Kaiser's designs(Schleicher K-series) and
the Discus... Any other to list?

--
EvValentin808

No doubt this thread will have a long run.

My view is that all gliders are 'forgiving' - if flown by a qualified
pilot. *OTOH, unqualified pilots can wreck any glider no matter how
'forgiving'.

In any event, 'forgiving' handling qualities has little to do with the
safety of the pilot. *Any glider, no matter how 'forgiving' can be
flown into a very unforgiving Earth. *They will still collide with
mountains and other gliders. *Trees and other obstacles can still
wreck them. *The number of accidents with poor handling qualities as
the primary cause is virtually non-existent.

I don't agree at all. A qualified pilot can compensate for "unforgiving"
qualities, but that doesn't make the glider "forgiving". Some gliders
have very poor glide path control, some spin easily, with little
warning, and don't recover quickly. Put the CG too far aft, and most
gliders are likely not "forgiving".

Right, and the only thing that makes these gliders 'forgiving' is
pilot skill. My experience is the difference between the worst and
best handling glider is fairly small. After all, they have to go
through the same certification process. (Experimental glider
excluded, of course.)


Even a qualified pilot can be distracted, or tired, or hypoxic, or
dehydrated, and the outcome is likely to be much better in a "forgiving"
glider than one that isn't.

You really think mere benign handling qualities will save this guy?
He's likely to fly his 'forgiving' glider into a tree.

What's REALLY unforgiving is nature. *Make enough mistakes and 'ol
Mother Nature will kill or maim you. *She's merciless. * Her goal is
just cleaning the gene pool.

I don't think the "Mother Nature" is the main factor in most glider
accidents. Look at how many happen near the airport and in good weather.

Mother nature = gravity. Gravity is involved in all accidents.

So, forget handling qualities and worry about flying skills. *They're
FAR more important.

There is no reason at all to "forget about" something that you can buy
and have it work for you every time you fly. Get a glider that won't
surprise you, even if you make a mistake, get the flying skills you need
to handle it, and work constantly on the judgment that will keep you out
of bad situations.

I don't think you can "buy" safety - (except by hiring a highly
proficient pilot to fly you around in a two seater). A lot of pilots
who have tried to buy it are dead. Safety is something you have to
earn with training, practice and RESPECT for the danger.

bildan wrote:
My experience is the difference between the worst and
best handling glider is fairly small.

No. Give a low-time student an ASK-21 and he will happily thermal away.
Give the same student a Fox and he will kill himself.

On Jul 20, 2:55*pm, John Smith wrote:
bildan wrote:
My experience is the difference between the worst and
best handling glider is fairly small.

No. Give a low-time student an ASK-21 and he will happily thermal away.
Give the same student a Fox and he will kill himself.

Thanks for bringing up the Fox. Learn to fly one with a great
instructor and every other glider will seem like a pussycat. THEN,
you're a safe - at least from handling issues.

A competent pilot (meaning one who has trained in the Fox with an
expert) can fly a Fox safely AND fly the ASK-21 safely. The student
thermalling happily in an ASK-21 is neither competent nor safe since
he may have to land in a gusty crosswind among other things. The key
here isn't the glider, it's the pilot's skill.

No glider is so 'forgiving' that it will save a pilot from himself or
from the inevitable flukes of nature and few, if any, gliders are so
viscous a pilot can't be trained to fly them safely. Safety, to the
extent that it exists, is in the skill set a pilot brings to the task.

I learned to fly in an LK-10A - a glider whose spin characteristics
make a 2-32 seem like a pussycat. We trained all sorts to fly it and,
yes, there were a few accidents but they were the same kind students
have with 2-33's. Pilots were afraid of the LK's spin characteristics
so they were careful not to spin (a good thing). Instead of spinning,
they hit fences.

Let me repeat my key point - you can't buy safety, you have to earn it
with training, practice and RESPECT. If a pilot is so concerned about
his ability he's seeking to buy a 'safe'glider, he should spend his
money on more training.

bildan wrote:
On Jul 20, 2:55 pm, John wrote:
bildan wrote:
My experience is the difference between the worst and
best handling glider is fairly small.

No. Give a low-time student an ASK-21 and he will happily thermal away.
Give the same student a Fox and he will kill himself.

....
Let me repeat my key point - you can't buy safety, you have to earn it
....

Without any doubt. But you claimed that the difference in handling among
gliders was "fairly small". And this just isn't so.

On Jul 20, 5:24*pm, John Smith wrote:
bildan wrote:
On Jul 20, 2:55 pm, John *wrote:
bildan wrote:
My experience is the difference between the worst and
best handling glider is fairly small.

No. Give a low-time student an ASK-21 and he will happily thermal away..
Give the same student a Fox and he will kill himself.

... Let me repeat my key point - you can't buy safety, you have to earn it

...

Without any doubt. But you claimed that the difference in handling among
gliders was "fairly small". And this just isn't so.


It is so.

If you step outside the cloistered world of sailplanes into the world
of airplanes you'll find very wide differences. Withing the wide
world of aviation, sailplanes exist in a "fairly small" envelope of
handling qualities. There are outliers, of course, but the majority
are pretty much alike in being very benign, gentle aircraft. Pilots
whose entire experience is limited to sailplanes may tend to magnify
small differences others wouldn't notice.

I've never flown a glider with a 'bad rep' which lived up to it and I
have more than 200 types in my logbook. I once owned a Lark IS28B2
which, in come circles, has a bad reputation for unintentional spins.
You'll hear things like, "It'll just drop out from under you." This
isn't true.

I took one such pilot for a BFR check ride in the Lark. When I asked
him to demonstrate slow flight, he didn't notice the glider's
pronounced pre-stall buffet. It was shaking the glider until stuff
fell off the Velcro but HE was shaking even more than the glider.
When I took the controls, calmed him down and asked him to feel the
buffet, I was able to tell him, "See, it warns you before it stalls -
just feel for the buffet." For him it was an epiphany - he really
enjoyed the rest of the flight.

Same thing with a 2-32 which is a big old sweetheart. It has a nice
little shake to the stick which tells you it's too slow but you won't
feel it if you have a death grip. Yes, it'll spin but not without
warning.

On 7/20/2010 3:57 PM, bildan wrote:
Let me repeat my key point - you can't buy safety, you have to earn it
with training, practice and RESPECT. If a pilot is so concerned about
his ability he's seeking to buy a 'safe'glider, he should spend his
money on more training.

I believe you can buy safety, or at least more safety. Gliders are not
all certified to the same standard, and that is why the older gliders,
like the Std Cirrus, are not as forgiving as the newer gliders. And the
safety you can buy is not just easier handling, but things like
automatic hookups and crash-resistant cockpits.

But don't understand my use of the word "buy" to mean just "spend more
money"; it's more about the glider you select, not the amount you pay
for it. My real message: some gliders are safer to fly because they land
more slowly, have excellent glidepath control, don't want to spin, give
plenty of warning, recover quickly from mishandling, and generally offer
more protection screwups in a variety of ways.

A pilot that is qualified to assemble and fly a Nimbus 4 will have a
greater margin in an ASK 21. A pilot that can't manage a Nimbus 4 can
still be a very safe pilot in a Blanik. Gliders are not the same across
the spectrum available to the buyer.

I've flown my ASH 26 E for 15 years and 3000 hours with out any
accidents, so I believe I'm qualified to fly it. Do I believe I'd be
safer in an ASK 21? Yes! Occasionally, I do fly a slower, simpler
glider, and I'm amazed at how easy it is. It reminds that my safety
margins are smaller with my ASH 26 E, but I accept that because I enjoy
it so much it's worth the risk.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On 2010/07/20 10:44 PM, bildan wrote:
On Jul 20, 1:59 pm, Eric wrote:
On 7/20/2010 12:24 PM, bildan wrote:





On Jul 20, 8:35 am, EvValentin808
wrote:

Can anyone give me a list of forgiving sailplanes out there. I know some
like the Schweizers, Rudolf Kaiser's designs(Schleicher K-series) and
the Discus... Any other to list?

--
EvValentin808

No doubt this thread will have a long run.

My view is that all gliders are 'forgiving' - if flown by a qualified
pilot. OTOH, unqualified pilots can wreck any glider no matter how
'forgiving'.

In any event, 'forgiving' handling qualities has little to do with the
safety of the pilot. Any glider, no matter how 'forgiving' can be
flown into a very unforgiving Earth. They will still collide with
mountains and other gliders. Trees and other obstacles can still
wreck them. The number of accidents with poor handling qualities as
the primary cause is virtually non-existent.

I don't agree at all. A qualified pilot can compensate for "unforgiving"
qualities, but that doesn't make the glider "forgiving". Some gliders
have very poor glide path control, some spin easily, with little
warning, and don't recover quickly. Put the CG too far aft, and most
gliders are likely not "forgiving".

Right, and the only thing that makes these gliders 'forgiving' is
pilot skill. My experience is the difference between the worst and
best handling glider is fairly small. After all, they have to go
through the same certification process. (Experimental glider
excluded, of course.)


Even a qualified pilot can be distracted, or tired, or hypoxic, or
dehydrated, and the outcome is likely to be much better in a "forgiving"
glider than one that isn't.

You really think mere benign handling qualities will save this guy?
He's likely to fly his 'forgiving' glider into a tree.

What's REALLY unforgiving is nature. Make enough mistakes and 'ol
Mother Nature will kill or maim you. She's merciless. Her goal is
just cleaning the gene pool.

I don't think the "Mother Nature" is the main factor in most glider
accidents. Look at how many happen near the airport and in good weather.

Mother nature = gravity. Gravity is involved in all accidents.

So, forget handling qualities and worry about flying skills. They're
FAR more important.

There is no reason at all to "forget about" something that you can buy
and have it work for you every time you fly. Get a glider that won't
surprise you, even if you make a mistake, get the flying skills you need
to handle it, and work constantly on the judgment that will keep you out
of bad situations.

I don't think you can "buy" safety - (except by hiring a highly
proficient pilot to fly you around in a two seater). A lot of pilots
who have tried to buy it are dead. Safety is something you have to
earn with training, practice and RESPECT for the danger.
Hi Bill

I'm with Eric here. My first glass was (still is) a Std Cirrus. Nimble,
responsive, fun to fly. Unforgiving of inattention. Easy to spin (and
correct) Landings are always challenging with the pitch sensitivity, and
low washout tips.
Second is a Kestrel 19 - much heavier, more complex, big wings. I know
which one I have to worry more in. Specifically about my performance -
not the glider - About getting dehydrated or simply tired, about making
a mistake at a critical point. And you do get more tired because you can
never relax in the Cirrus.

Skill is not everything. Attentiveness and luck also play a role, as do
things like the relative effort required to safely conduct a flight.

If you fly something with exemplary handling, like a (Duo)Discus or a
K21 or a LS4 it is a lot easier to be safe.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Jul 20, 10:09*pm, Bruce wrote:
On 2010/07/20 10:44 PM, bildan wrote:



On Jul 20, 1:59 pm, Eric *wrote:
On 7/20/2010 12:24 PM, bildan wrote:

On Jul 20, 8:35 am, EvValentin808
* *wrote:

Can anyone give me a list of forgiving sailplanes out there. I know some
like the Schweizers, *Rudolf Kaiser's designs(Schleicher K-series) and
the Discus... Any other to list?

--
EvValentin808

No doubt this thread will have a long run.

My view is that all gliders are 'forgiving' - if flown by a qualified
pilot. *OTOH, unqualified pilots can wreck any glider no matter how
'forgiving'.

In any event, 'forgiving' handling qualities has little to do with the
safety of the pilot. *Any glider, no matter how 'forgiving' can be
flown into a very unforgiving Earth. *They will still collide with
mountains and other gliders. *Trees and other obstacles can still
wreck them. *The number of accidents with poor handling qualities as
the primary cause is virtually non-existent.

I don't agree at all. A qualified pilot can compensate for "unforgiving"
qualities, but that doesn't make the glider "forgiving". Some gliders
have very poor glide path control, some spin easily, with little
warning, and don't recover quickly. Put the CG too far aft, and most
gliders are likely not "forgiving".

Right, and the only thing that makes these gliders 'forgiving' is
pilot skill. *My experience is the difference between the worst and
best handling glider is fairly small. *After all, they have to go
through the same certification process. *(Experimental glider
excluded, of course.)

Even a qualified pilot can be distracted, or tired, or hypoxic, or
dehydrated, and the outcome is likely to be much better in a "forgiving"
glider than one that isn't.

You really think mere benign handling qualities will save this guy?
He's likely to fly his 'forgiving' glider into a tree.

What's REALLY unforgiving is nature. *Make enough mistakes and 'ol
Mother Nature will kill or maim you. *She's merciless. * Her goal is
just cleaning the gene pool.

I don't think the "Mother Nature" is the main factor in most glider
accidents. Look at how many happen near the airport and in good weather.

Hi Derek

You are correct - I am amplifying the difference. As I said I actually
prefer the handling on the Cirrus. BUT - I learned, on the Cirrus, to
fly with a very light touch on the stick. There is virtually no force
feedback on pitch. Especially in some of the big rough thermals we get
here, you tend to get a wing dropping quite easily.

As Bob commented - it is a pilot skill thing. I can, and do, fly the
Cirrus quite close to the limit and get the best climb rates etc. When I
do that I am aware that the departure from controlled flight is quite
rapid - and if I am not paying attention I will have a wing drop.
Recovery is instant - just unload the wing. Smoothly approached there is
a distinct turbulent warning - especially as the wake hits the elevator.

So - the Cirrus is a precise aircraft to fly, but can be more work than
some others. e.g. you can't take your hand off the stick for more than a
second or so (Phugoid is divergent and the elevator is effectively
mounted on a gimbal), and will reliably reward ham fisted insensitive
control inputs with a spin. The point I was trying to make is that some
aircraft require more attention. Which can contribute to impaired
capability - which is less safe.

For what it is worth.

I have serial Std Cirrus number 57. Which is a little different - it was
imported by the Schempp agent specifically for the purpose of flying
records. So - It has lower washout on the tips, (standard on early models)
- the components (wings/fuselage etc) were selected at the factory for
being heavy.
- It has a tail wheel and is set up with the CG quite far aft. I have to
accept that as the heavy fuselage limits the amount of weight I can put
in the nose without exceeding max non-lifting weight with me in it.
- Said heroic early owners damaged both wingtips, and broke the fuselage
(twice) and elevator - so lots of repairs at various stages. Maybe she
is not 100% straight.
- Currently in the workshop getting the second paddles added to the
airbrakes and winglets to improve the low speed behaviour, and a
cosmetic make over to make her pretty again.

Bruce

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---