Is everybody afraid of World Class?

In message , Bruce
Hoult writes
In article ,
Robin Birch wrote:

My first glider was, and still is come to that, an Astir 77. Not
sparkling performance and it climbs like a lump of concrete compared to,
say, a DG300, however it was cheap, probably cost me 8k ukp when I
bought it. Is a very nice glider to fly and is quite capable (shame I'm
not :-)) of doing a 300k task in UK conditions. This is what any glider
that is being introduced as a cheap, early solo, machine has to compete
with.

UK conditions must be even more ****e than I've been lead to believe if
you can't do a 300k in a PW-5 there. Surely people were (and are) doing
that sort of flight in K6's?

Oh yes. It is the total package that I was referring to. In fact I
would have been quite happy with a good K6 E as there have been several
come up locally since I bought my Astir that would have been cheaper.

Regards

Robin
--
Robin Birch

In message , Chris Nicholas
writes
The UK has usually 0-3 absolutely superb days each year (like this year,
1000km in an ASW22, lots of 750's and more, and possible 750 in PW5 or
500+ in a Ka6E, 300km in a K8 - all those have been done at times).
Rarely more than 3 such days and sometimes none in a year.

More frequent days happen when usually 500km in good glass is possible
or 300+ in lower perfomance glass and Ka6E is possible - I doubt if many
years happen with no such days, there are usually maybe 5-10 or more
most years. It is that kind of weather I imagine Robin was talking
about. Weekend only pilots many take several years of trying, however,
before they, the glider availability, and the weather all work out OK at
the same time.

Yes I was. You summary is fairly typical of the conditions we see in
the UK
I believe that the emergence of 1:40+ gliders has transformed UK soaring
from a struggle to do long tasks except on the few really good days to a
pattern of lots of days of 300km+ capability. A lot of pilots (I was
one such until very recently) plug on with wood or low performance
glass, either out of financial necessity or stubbornness/enjoying the
challenge. Others find the wherewithal to go to better glass and are
more often able to do long flights. There are also the factors of
spreadout - sometimes the wooden glider simply cannot jump the gaps
between areas with lift; and penetration, when wood/PW5's etc. cannot
complete closed circuit tasks because the into-wind leg is impossible.
(I speak from experience, e.g. 4 outlandings downwind in 5 days flying
in Competition Enterprise this year, because of strong winds all week.
The 6th and last flyable day I did not compete in my Ka6E because of the
wind strength, though a few glass gliders did.)

Yes, mind you it was fun. I think I managed 3 outlandings but inly
because I didn't go far on one day actually made it back. Despite that
Enterprise was fun, the first "real" comp that I'd been in and a great
education. I'd happily do it again.

Robin
Chris N.






--
Robin Birch

In an RV-3, recently an unlatched side opening canopy
ripped off with a loud bang in flight and a friend of mine
lost his glasses with it. 100 knots in the open air
isn't fun.

He landed safely, but said it was exciting.

Katana canopies (clamshell) and side opening canopies
don't sound so great to me. Yep, the L-13 canopy
with self-latch seems pretty good, but for one seaters,
the rear-opening canopy seems like the best.
Besides, I like the vis a lot better than with
bars in the way...

I am curious about how different canopies will react to being unlatched.
The Schleicher design appears to have air pressure holding it down, at
least in the closed position. I don't know what happens if turbulence
were to bounce it up a few inches.

A friend had his DG 400 canopy open in flight, and stay open, so he had
to pull it closed. His headphones and various things flew out of the
cockpit. Fortunately, he was quite high at the time, and dealt with it
successively, but (as I recall) could not retrieve the headphones, so
the cord kept the canopy from latching after he pulled it back down.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA



--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

In article , Chris Nicholas
writes

snip

I believe that the emergence of 1:40+ gliders has transformed UK soaring
from a struggle to do long tasks except on the few really good days to a
pattern of lots of days of 300km+ capability.

A lot of pilots (I was
one such until very recently) plug on with wood or low performance
glass, either out of financial necessity or stubbornness/enjoying the
challenge.

Others find the wherewithal to go to better glass and are
more often able to do long flights.

There are also the factors of
spreadout - sometimes the wooden glider simply cannot jump the gaps
between areas with lift; and penetration, when wood/PW5's etc. cannot
complete closed circuit tasks because the into-wind leg is impossible.
(I speak from experience, e.g. 4 outlandings downwind in 5 days flying
in Competition Enterprise this year, because of strong winds all week.
The 6th and last flyable day I did not compete in my Ka6E because of the
wind strength, though a few glass gliders did.)

A breath of common sense and fresh air from Chris!

If I might put it another way: In not very good soaring conditions,
glider performance has its own merit, particularly high L/D. So as to
penetrate from one set of soaring to another, without landing. Is not
soaring without regular land-outs, the very essence of our sport?

--
Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

Bentworth Hall West
Tel: +44 1420 564 195 Bentworth, Alton
Fax: +44 1420 563 140 Hampshire GU34 5LA, ENGLAND

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:412d0013$1@darkstar...
In an RV-3, recently an unlatched side opening canopy
ripped off with a loud bang in flight and a friend of mine
lost his glasses with it. 100 knots in the open air
isn't fun.

He landed safely, but said it was exciting.

Katana canopies (clamshell) and side opening canopies
don't sound so great to me.

Yes, they open in front and can not maintain level flight with them open.
I think about three Katanas have been shot down by their canopies. I notice
they turned the canopy around on the 4-seater.

Yep, the L-13 canopy
with self-latch seems pretty good, but for one seaters,
the rear-opening canopy seems like the best.

Without a doubt!

Vaughn

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:46:51 +0100, Ian Strachan
wrote:

Is not
soaring without regular land-outs, the very essence of our sport?

Ian, what is the "essence" of any sport will vary for every person
that participates. There is no "One" thing that will apply to
everyone equally. For someone in a higher buck glider, it may be a
sign of total failure, for someone in a 1-26 it may be only the price
he pays for having too much fun and not watching close enough.

OT: Happiness is victory over Aurora health care,

and I AM HAPPY!

Chris-

I like your analysis...and the same can be said for
the western United State...it really helps to have
a ship that can make it across the large gaps, and
that takes penetration. Not a lot of PW5's seen in
these parts...although the 1-26ers make some impressive
flights(and land out a lot)

Ian-
I understand your point, but Reichman would disagree





At 22:06 25 August 2004, Ian Strachan wrote:
In article , Chris Nicholas
writes
There are also the factors of
spreadout - sometimes the wooden glider simply cannot
jump the gaps
between areas with lift; and penetration, when wood/PW5's
etc. cannot
complete closed circuit tasks because the into-wind
leg is impossible.
SNIPPED

Is not
soaring without regular land-outs, the very essence
of our sport?

--
Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

Bentworth
Hall West
Tel: +44 1420 564 195 Bentworth,
Alton
Fax: +44 1420 563 140 Hampshire
GU34 5LA, ENGLAND

Mark James Boyd wrote:

In article ,
NigelPocock wrote:
If DG design and make new LS4 right now ,it would new cost about $70,000
Pw-5 new cost $22,000

But a new Junior, 15m strong, good handling with better performance costs about
the same as a PeeWee.
No contest which I would buy

But how about the Junior vs. a retract Russia AC-4c or a Sparrowhawk?

The PeeWee simply won't be the next World Class glider. But
there are other 15m gliders which may. Do you think
15m is simply the minimum span (a 12-13.5 meter glider
is just silly?)

And you glider makers and repairers out there (Bob K. and JJ),
is there enough savings in weight and money to make the extra
wing of 15m that a 12-13.5 meter glider costs significantly less?

I don't know the answer to these questions, but I find them interesting.
For me personally, the answer is just plain yes, I'm happier
with less span. But if I weighed 225 lbs, I'd say just the
opposite, perhaps...

Some element of answer about the influence of the wing span on the
price of the glider: IIRC just before the production was stoppped
a few years ago, the LAK12 (20m wingspan) was sold new at about $20k.
It seems that the major factor of cost is the country where the glider
is built and the cost of manpower in this country, rather than the
wing span.

Bert Willing wrote:

Exactly. Just a bunch of say 50,000 arrogant European pilots who think that
it's an ugly ship and who rather spend $15,000 on a second hand ship having
much more performance...


Remember a high number of pilots among these 50,000 are not owning nor buying
any glider, but just fly club gliders. And the choice of which glider a club
should buy is another thing. If a glider costs twice the price of a PW5, but
flies twice the number of hours a PW5 would fly because of better performance,
there is no hesitation on the choice. My club owned 2 old gliders (wood, metal
frame and fabric) that were donated, not sold, some years ago because the annual
number of hours they were flown were not worth the simple cost of maintaining them
airworthy.

In article ,
Robert Ehrlich wrote:
Bert Willing wrote:

Exactly. Just a bunch of say 50,000 arrogant European pilots who think that
it's an ugly ship and who rather spend $15,000 on a second hand ship having
much more performance...


Remember a high number of pilots among these 50,000 are not owning nor buying
any glider, but just fly club gliders. And the choice of which glider a club
should buy is another thing. If a glider costs twice the price of a PW5, but
flies twice the number of hours a PW5 would fly because of better performance,
there is no hesitation on the choice. My club owned 2 old gliders (wood, metal
frame and fabric) that were donated, not sold, some years ago because the annual
number of hours they were flown were not worth the simple cost of maintaining them
airworthy.

The flip side is the 1-34 that BASA owns. They have a DG1000,
grob 103, and pegasi, but kept the 1-34 because it's just so dang
cheap to maintain.

And a local power FBO just sold two 152s and a 172 to
buy a brand new 172 because it's less maintenance.

So I think the door swings both ways. Operators may buy or
keep old stuff that is sturdy, and discard old stuff that
breaks a lot.

The L-13 seems to be a good example. Old, and with lots of
parts, but it doesn't need a new gelcoat, so it
makes a good tiedown glider. But an old glider with wood wings?
Man, now you're talkin' el rotto...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA