PW-6U by Jezow being delivered

On Aug 18, 4:50 pm, "
wrote:
People are going to buy one or the other based on lots of other
factors, local vendor/agent support, familiarity on type, other
gliders locally, cockpit comfort, need for an acro trainer, ...
Especially with the Duo-X vs. a DG-1000S there is little in it and I
can't seriously believe that small differences in polar performance
would ever get near the top of anybody's real purchase decision.

Did you read my original post on the matter? For your benefit:

On Aug 15, 9:29 am, Dan G wrote:
Quickly RE DG1000 vs Duo - a club near me has also bought a second
DG1000 rather than a Duo too. Why? Because the DG1000 is a far better
ship. Unlike the Duo it is suitable for pre-solo training to
comfortably out-running Duos on XC. It's a stronger glider with a far
better design (people may laugh at the enormous landing gear but wait
until a pupil gives you a heavy landing, or the glider lands out in
crop. Then you'll know why DG designed it).

The DG1000 is a superior club glider as it vastly more suitable for
uses other than pure cross-country. (The new "XL" cockpit is clearly
SH's second attempt to catch up with the DG, rectifying the problems
of the "snug" Janus fuselage.) For cross-country, the DG is either as
good, or better.

On Aug 18, 4:41 pm, Bruce wrote:
I think very highly of DG and company. Their test was valid in 2000 - but given
that the Duo is now two revisions on, I wonder if the comparison is still the
same...

As far as I can tell, the only difference applicable in normal flight
is the addition of winglets. How much effect does fitting winglets
have? I seem to remember that they could only achieve a benefit within
quite a narrow speed range.


Dan

At 08:54 19 August 2007, Dan G wrote:

The new 'XL' cockpit is clearly SH's second attempt
to catch up with the DG, rectifying the problems of
the 'snug' Janus fuselage.


Just for interest - as I was looking around the prototype
Duo X at the factory in May 2005 one of the staff told
me that they were already planning modifications o
the cockpit 'to improve the separation of the pilots',
as he put it.



As far as I can tell, the only difference applicable
in normal flight
is the addition of winglets. How much effect does fitting
winglets
have? I seem to remember that they could only achieve
a benefit within quite a narrow speed range.

That was true about some older winglets designs but
whole point of the Maughmer winglets now used on Schempp-Hirth
gliders is that there is either performance benefit
or no loss throughout the cross country flying speed
range. See Prof Maughmer's articles at:

http://www.mandhsoaring.com/winglets.html

Dan, yes I read your original post and your other posts and I was
responding to your conclusions drawn from differences in the polars
and your comments like "comfortably out-running Duos on XC." Have you
now found sanity or do you still believe this?

Have you flown both gliders XC much so you can judge their real world
XC performance or have you just looked at the polars? I have about 50
hours XC in each of a Duo and a DG-1000S and I'd worry about my own
experiences flying both gliders XC and not making conclusions based on
reading somebody else review measuring tiny polar differences. They XC
with about the same performance and I'd certainly not claim either
ship can "comfortably out run" the other. I doubt that Karl
Streidrick, Tom Knauff or Gavin Wills (and Gavin operates a DG-1000S
amongst his fleet of Duos) worry about "being comfortably outrun" by
DG-1000S'.

And just so you don't read too much more else into that DG article -
I believe it was written before adding the mass balance needed for the
DG-1000S to meet the new flutter requirements. Adding that mass
balance is one of the reasons for the heavy aileron control forces on
the DG-1000S - by comparison the Duo has more harmonized control
forces and flies nicer when very slow scratching thermals on weak
days. You can slow it down a lot and float around a thermal with more
feel than in the DG-1000S. I'd want to consider that a factor in any
XC performance argument.

Darryl

On Aug 19, 1:48 am, Dan G wrote:
On Aug 18, 4:50 pm, "
wrote:

People are going to buy one or the other based on lots of other
factors, local vendor/agent support, familiarity on type, other
gliders locally, cockpit comfort, need for an acro trainer, ...
Especially with the Duo-X vs. a DG-1000S there is little in it and I
can't seriously believe that small differences in polar performance
would ever get near the top of anybody's real purchase decision.

Did you read my original post on the matter? For your benefit:

On Aug 15, 9:29 am, Dan G wrote:

Quickly RE DG1000 vs Duo - a club near me has also bought a second
DG1000 rather than a Duo too. Why? Because the DG1000 is a far better
ship. Unlike the Duo it is suitable for pre-solo training to
comfortably out-running Duos on XC. It's a stronger glider with a far
better design (people may laugh at the enormous landing gear but wait
until a pupil gives you a heavy landing, or the glider lands out in
crop. Then you'll know why DG designed it).

The DG1000 is a superior club glider as it vastly more suitable for
uses other than pure cross-country. (The new "XL" cockpit is clearly
SH's second attempt to catch up with the DG, rectifying the problems
of the "snug" Janus fuselage.) For cross-country, the DG is either as
good, or better.

On Aug 18, 4:41 pm, Bruce wrote:

I think very highly of DG and company. Their test was valid in 2000 - but given
that the Duo is now two revisions on, I wonder if the comparison is still the
same...

As far as I can tell, the only difference applicable in normal flight
is the addition of winglets. How much effect does fitting winglets
have? I seem to remember that they could only achieve a benefit within
quite a narrow speed range.

Dan

On Aug 19, 4:36 pm, "
wrote:
Dan, yes I read your original post and your other posts and I was
responding to your conclusions drawn from differences in the polars
and your comments like "comfortably out-running Duos on XC." Have you
now found sanity or do you still believe this?

Yep, in the light of your comments I now believe that both gliders are
virtually equal for XC. Don't see someone saying that on Usenet
everyday do you :-). TBH it was a bit of a throw-away comment - like
everyone else, I know that XC speed is down to the pilot, not the
glider - and I'm sorry it irked you so much.

Dan

Are DG's all finished in poly? What about Duo and
other SH products? Poly or gel?

Personally I think the exchange rate being a little
more favorable would make either ship more appealing.

On Aug 19, 3:51 pm, Stewart Kissel
wrote:
Are DG's all finished in poly? What about Duo and
other SH products? Poly or gel?

Personally I think the exchange rate being a little
more favorable would make either ship more appealing.

Does any sailplane manufacturer not have poly/acrylic paint as an
option now? On DG sailplanes it is an option, not standard, at least
the last DG price book I looked at. SH I think paint is still an
option not standard. But poly/acrylic paint is available on both and I
don't see why anybody now days would not go that way. For a few $k and
considering the base price of these sailplanes I'm suprised anybody
ordering one today would want to save a few $K by avoiding the paint
option.

That thick DG gel coat that looks just beautiful out of the factory is
prone to temperature cycling related cracking on the upper wing,
usually running from the spoiler box to the trailing edge. We had one
such crack in our gelcoat finished club DG-1000S ground out and
repaired but you never know it may come back. I have one similar in my
DG-303 barely visible but its there. I expect choosing poly/acrylic
paint would greatly reduce the chance of any similar cracking. My
*impression* is the SH gelcoat does not stand up to UV exposure as
well as the DG gelcoat do, but are much less prone to temperature
related cracks. I think Jack Harkin's new Duo-X (mentioned in other
Duo threads) has paint, but I'm not sure (she looks beautiful,
sigh, ... I'm in love).

It is nice to see some manufactures stopping messing around with long
lists of options and doing things like making acrylic paint the
standard, like Schleicher on the new ASH-30 (yes I know for the price
you'd hope so).

Darryl

wrote:
On Aug 14, 4:11 pm, Greg Arnold wrote:
When buying new, what lead you to get a second DG-1000 rather than
diversifying by getting a Duo Discus?
[snip]

I don't think we would have thought fleet diversity was a benefit.
With relatively low time pilots joining out club and working towards
flying the DG-1000S the less differences in the fleet the better. It
saves hassle with extra checkouts. And in a club all the little things
about procedures on how you rig gliders, charge batteries, connect
PDAs, where things get left, tied down etc. all is a pain the more
things are even the slightest bit different can cause lots of
problems.

Bingo. Fleet diversity is a double-edged sword. While it protects you
against a pain in the ass factory (*cough* Centrair *cough*) it
increases complexity of the club and introduces confusion and/or
currency issues for members who fly less frequently.

I suspect some members would have also resisted getting the Duo
because of the differences in effectiveness of spoilers, worrying if
they might be pilots who get over-reliant on the very effective
DG-1000S spoilers.

There were several strikes against the Duo in our early discussions
about buying the DG-1000 or a Duo. The Duo didn't have back seat gear
control, had a bit less ground clearance, lower spoiler effectiveness,
and no option for aerobatics (not that we really exercise that ability
as often as some thought we might).

And then there are physical comfort issues. The DG-1000 back seat can
be uncomfortable, but you can adjust the height and pad the heck out of
it. And it's roomy. The Duo, as we all know, has a front seat with no
spare room. We BASA pilots carry lots of little gizmos with us (well,
some do).

Being able to play with all the ballast weights in the tail is nice to
have, but for a club I sometimes think it's an unnecessary complexity...

BTW BASA requires 60 flights and 30 hours PIC in a "high performance"
glider (L/D 33:1) for members to fly the DG-1000S but try to give
new members lots of opportunity to fly in the DG-1000S, including
cross country, with other members. Up until then new members (mostly
freshly minted pilots training in 2-32s) can fly in the club Junior or
Grob 103. BASA has an all plastic fleet, does not do flight
instruction, that is handled at local commercial schools.

We do allow flight instruction in BASA ships. It's just that you can't
join the club until you've got a private certificate. But I did my
commercial work and checkride in a BASA ship (as several members have).

Personally if I was buying a two seater XC machine I'd buy a Duo-X
just for the much better handling and thermalling 'feel' of the
glider, flying the DG-1000S feels like a truck at times compared to
the Duo

Agreed.

I almost bought 1/4th (or was it a 1/3rd?) of a Duo a couple years back.
It's too bad the exchange rate keeps sucking. I'm starting to think
we missed a really good opportunity...

Jeremy

On Aug 20, 4:28 pm, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 14, 4:11 pm, Greg Arnold wrote:
When buying new, what lead you to get a second DG-1000 rather than
diversifying by getting a Duo Discus?
[snip]
[snip]

I suspect some members would have also resisted getting the Duo
because of the differences in effectiveness of spoilers, worrying if
they might be pilots who get over-reliant on the very effective
DG-1000S spoilers.

There were several strikes against the Duo in our early discussions
about buying the DG-1000 or a Duo. The Duo didn't have back seat gear
control, had a bit less ground clearance, lower spoiler effectiveness,
and no option for aerobatics (not that we really exercise that ability
as often as some thought we might).

And just to be clear, Jeremy is talking about the initial evaluation a
few years ago around wether to purchase a Duo or DG-1000S. And a big
kicker was a very clean used DG-1000S became available and that really
did it. And for our club it was a better choice than a Duo for all the
reasons Jeremy mentions. When it comes to the current time, it is
fleet diversity issues that likely drives any purchase decisions. And
so wether the Duo-X has improved things are pretty much irrelevant for
our next club purchase.

[snip]

Being able to play with all the ballast weights in the tail is nice to
have, but for a club I sometimes think it's an unnecessary complexity...

Especially when the tail ballast box cover falls off in flight. But
blame there is shared between poor design and more importantly poor
preflight inspection -- it happened with me as PIC and Jeremy as my
passenger :-(. Some Duo operators I know do juggle tail water ballast
and once you have the suitable fill gear (e.g. hand pressurized
pesticide sprayer tank) out on the flight line I don't think it is
much hassle (how badly you could get a Duo out of CG range, if at all,
would be interesting to look at. The DG-1000S is pretty benign to tail
ballast box mistakes).

[snip]

Darryl

wrote:
On Aug 20, 4:28 pm, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
Being able to play with all the ballast weights in the tail is nice to
have, but for a club I sometimes think it's an unnecessary complexity...

Especially when the tail ballast box cover falls off in flight. But
blame there is shared between poor design and more importantly poor
preflight inspection -- it happened with me as PIC and Jeremy as my
passenger :-(.

I wasn't going to bring that up, but since you did...

I'm amazed that none of the weights came out of the box. I'm sure we
had some left turns along with the right turns on that flight. So it
either came off very late, or the design took that possibility into
account. There's a bit of a groove in the box, IIRC. But I'm still
impressed.

Jeremy

Anyone have experience of rigging and derigging the PW6U? How does it
compare to the K21 in terms of wing weight, control connections
(auto?), and general ease?


Dan