Medium performance gliders

Doug Hoffman wrote:


Hypothetical situation (in time maybe not so hypothetical): In the
future we have 400 pound empty motorless 18 meter gliders with 80:1
glide and thermaling characteristics superior to a 1-26. Someone has a
restored a Schweizer 2-22. The 2-22 and the 18 meter take off for some
x-country flying here in Michigan on a typical weak day with 1-2 knot
thermals spread far apart with 3,000' AGL being the highest one can go.
I'd put my money on the likelihood of the 18 meter not landing out
compared to the 2-22. Landing out being defined here as landing in a
field not an airport. Here we have a *lot* of little airports/airstrips
peppered all over the place. If you get in trouble it is going to be
easy to get to an airstrip in the 18 meter. Call for an aero retrieve
and you land back at your home strip in 20 minutes. The 2-22 has a
decidedly less desirable ordeal having landed in a farmer's field (fetch
the trailer, disassemble in the field, etc.).

You're almost comparing two different sports though. That 18m uber-ship
will set the owner/s back $100,000+(+++ with the current dollar).
Restoration of a nearly free 2-22 might set that owner back
$5000-$10,000 plus sweat.
That said, I agree with Derek Piggot's quote about "*all else being
equal*, buy the most L/D you can afford". But that "all else being
equal" is a stupendously huge caveat. If what is most important to
*you* is tucking your ship into postage stamp sized fields, or climbing
in very weak thermals, it will dictate the performance to a great extent.

Shawn

Doug Hoffman wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote:
Doug Hoffman wrote:

Was it Derek Piggot that said "Buy all the performance you can afford
(all things being equal). Higher performance will lessen the chance
for landout during x-country."?

Landing out is a pilot choice, not an equipment attribute. The pilot
decides how important it is to return home, or if he prefers to land
at an airport instead of in a field, and flies accordingly. With 50:1,
he'll fly farther than with 25:1, but at the same risk of landing out.

So you don't recall if Derek said that (or something very similar) either?

No, I don't. I do suspect whoever said it, the context was "for a given
length task"; i.e., the pilot has made the choice to accept a high(er)
landout risk to complete the task.


I know many pilots in high performance gliders that don't land out,
but a lot of them are simply not pushing themselves or their glider
very hard. These pilots generally enjoy this more relaxed soaring, but
it's their choice not to land out, not something the equipment prevents.

Hypothetical situation (in time maybe not so hypothetical): In the
future we have 400 pound empty motorless 18 meter gliders with 80:1
glide and thermaling characteristics superior to a 1-26. Someone has a
restored a Schweizer 2-22. The 2-22 and the 18 meter take off for some
x-country flying here in Michigan on a typical weak day with 1-2 knot
thermals spread far apart with 3,000' AGL being the highest one can go.
I'd put my money on the likelihood of the 18 meter not landing out
compared to the 2-22. Landing out being defined here as landing in a
field not an airport. Here we have a *lot* of little airports/airstrips
peppered all over the place. If you get in trouble it is going to be
easy to get to an airstrip in the 18 meter. Call for an aero retrieve
and you land back at your home strip in 20 minutes. The 2-22 has a
decidedly less desirable ordeal having landed in a farmer's field (fetch
the trailer, disassemble in the field, etc.).

Everything you say is true, but it wasn't the equipment that caused the
2-22 to landout. The pilot made the CHOICE to accept a landout when he
flew out of range of an airport. The 2-22 did not surprise him by
suddenly becoming a 10:1 glider instead of 20:1. If avoiding a landout
was his priority, he would've stayed closer to an airport, and have that
towplane come get him, too.

Flown to it's potential, the 18 meter glider is also likely to land out
ocasionally, or at least so far away an aerotow retrieve would not be
practical, because it would be dark before they got back to the home
airport.

This happens because a high performance glider allows you to cover such
large distances, you can not see (nor always predict) the weather you
will be flying in two or three hours later. So, you get out there, say
150 miles, and discover the soaring is dying behind you (seabreeze,
thunderstorms, cirrus, etc - pick your poison). A 2-22, on the other
hand, can see all the weather it's going to use, simply because it
doesn't go very far.

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

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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

Doug Hoffman wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote:
I now fly a 50:1 glider, and "land-out" even more often, because I
push harder now. By "land-out", I mean I start the motor to avoid
actually putting the wheel in the dirt. It's great - aggressive
flying, and still home for beer and pizza!

Yes, that would be great. But in 2008 the vast majority of us have to
deal with "real" land outs. Not knocking self-rescuing gliders, but I
am *far* more impressed by someone who flies a long distance on a weak
day in a motorless than someone who flies the same with a motor, all
other things being equal.

I am also more impressed in that situation; however, if the pilots are
similar, the pilot of the powered glider will have flown *farther*,
perhaps much farther, than the other pilot. Now, it's harder for me to
know which impresses the most.

The psychological experience (adrenaline
factor?) for the pilot in the motorless is a whole 'nuther thing
compared to the self-rescuing. Yes, I know that sometimes the motors
fail to start. My contention remains. Especially as motor
technology/reliability improves, which it has/is.

I flew 3000 hours in motorless gliders, and now 2500 in powered gliders,
and for me, the "psychological experience (adrenaline factor?)" is
*better* in the powered glider. Imagine you met a pilot with a Super Cub
and towhook that was looking for any excuse to fly. He offers to
retrieve you from any airport, or even a decent farm field, any day, any
time, and you just buy the gas! Would you tell him to go bother somebody
else because you didn't want to give up your "psychological experience
(adrenaline factor?)"? Think about it - that's what it's like to have
a powered glider.

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

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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

Eric Greenwell wrote:
I flew 3000 hours in motorless gliders, and now 2500 in powered gliders,
and for me, the "psychological experience (adrenaline factor?)" is
*better* in the powered glider. Imagine you met a pilot with a Super Cub
and towhook that was looking for any excuse to fly. He offers to
retrieve you from any airport, or even a decent farm field, any day, any
time, and you just buy the gas! Would you tell him to go bother somebody
else because you didn't want to give up your "psychological experience
(adrenaline factor?)"? Think about it - that's what it's like to have
a powered glider.

Sorry. I didn't communicate well. I would *love* to have a motor in my
glider and would do it in a heartbeat for all the reasons you mention.
Problem is I can't afford one. Well, actually I could afford one. I
just couldn't afford to then also buy a new house to appease my better
half. ;-)

Regards,

-Doug

Doug Hoffman wrote:

Sorry. I didn't communicate well. I would *love* to have a motor in my
glider and would do it in a heartbeat for all the reasons you mention.
Problem is I can't afford one. Well, actually I could afford one. I
just couldn't afford to then also buy a new house to appease my better
half. ;-)

I'm sure she's a sensible person that can be reasoned with. Tell her the
motorglider is for *her* comfort and security:

* you will arrive home when promised - no more retrieves
* you will no longer complain about the long lines waiting for the
towplane, or whimper when the towplane is out of service
* And best of all, if (god forbid) you should be hit by a bus or other
large public transportation, she will not be destitute: she can sell the
motorglider for lot more than a plain glider, and live comfortably,
while the other wives she knows will wish their husbands were so
financially savvy and thoughtful.

Worked for me; at least, the first two were persuasive enough.

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

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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

Eric,

Is your wife a bus driver?


Ray Lovinggood
Bus Rider

rlovinggood wrote:
Eric,

Is your wife a bus driver?

Not a good plan if she is, eh? She will drive the motorhome and trailer,
as long as the trailer is empty!

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

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

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

im late to the game but what the heck, homework has kept me busy the
last few days.

i bought the best glider i could with the money i had. I choose to
fly maximum distance. I have luckily had no problems finding crews
the last two seasons. I also really enjoy meeting the local farmers.
All of this plays very well into flying a low performance glider. and
by golly its FUN!!

I haven't read all the answers to your original post, but mine depends
an awful lot on what you mean by "avg pilot".

If you fly with folk who are in better performing ships (forget
vintage), buy what you can afford to keep up with them, for they, not
your glider, will teach you the most. If you're more the loner type,
the question becomes much more subjective, no doubt covered in gory
detail by previous replies.

My first glider was a Glasflugel 304CZ, and it was a great choice for
a first glider, but I had to sell it in less than two years and pony
up for something better, just to have a prayer of keeping up with los
compadres. (Note that a major performance factor is maximum wing
loading -- not just L/D! I was being left behind in strong conditions
by gliders that could fly much higher wing loadings than my CZ. But in
weak conditions, it did fine, if not better.) But if I lived elsewhere
or flew with less talented cohorts, the 304CZ might have remained an
excellent first ship.

Regardless -- have fun with the choice you make and fly her to the
very best of your ability!

~ted/2NO

On 8 Mar, 18:42, Dave Rolley wrote:

More than the performance, you'll get frustrated with difficulty
handling a glider on the ground. Look for a glider with a trailer and
support equipment that makes it reasonably easy to assemble and handle
the glider. You'll appreciate it when you are disassembling in a field
after dark. Been there, done that. As have almost everyone on this
newsgroup.

Agreed. That's one of the reasons I like the Pirat. With one (strong)
person who knows what s/he's doing I can go from trailer to flight in
under fifteen minutes, and I have derigged - approaching snowstorm -
in five minutes flat.

Ian