Russia AC-4 Series

On Tuesday, October 6, 1998 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-7, William Hoadley wrote:
Does anybody have experience with the Russia sailplanes AC-4 series of
gliders? I was curious about how they might be for a pilot not interested
in competition, just sport and badge flying. Any comments would be helpful.
Bill Hoadley

Well... It has been a long time since I owned the Russia, but since I have about 700 hours in the AC4-A I can say it was a fun ship to fly. Easy to maintain, and easy to rig. As far as a cross country ship I did every thing I wished to do in it. I never found the lack of penetration to be an issue, just had to circle more than some others, and it took more time to get home on those days. The ship is made light weight, and it does take a bit of care not to put hangar rash on it. Mine was the first AC4 in the country so there wasn't much to compare it to. Some guys wanted to compare it to a 1-26 and it is clearly not. I learned quite a lot flying this ship. I had not learned to thermal well before owning this machine so I was doing a lot of learning the ropes with it. It climbs well with the fairings added. Many engineering types tell me the fairings are too big and should have been half the size. It didn't matter to me as they did improve the performance markedly. If you can buy one with a good trailer you will have no trouble with it. The price is right and all that considered. And yes I did complete my Diamond Goal flight, 1999 in this ship. Took six hours to go 300 K the first time. Did repeat many more 300 K flights in a lot less time after that. I sold the Russia to a gentleman in 2004 and hes since sold it to another pilot who lives in Maine. It still is flying as far as I know.

Tom Udd

That's me. Vermont, not Maine :-)

Fun to fly, and I do plenty of XC in it, albeit more slowly than the bigger ships. With a chute plus proper fitting and padding, I find the seat comfortable enough for 5+ hours. I've had several 300km flights in it the way OLC counts, but am still trying for a 300km pre-declared triangle. I do get locked out of XC on days with lowish tops and widely spaced thermals, while the 15-18m ships keep on going.

On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 9:44:25 AM UTC-7, wrote:
That's me. Vermont, not Maine :-)

Fun to fly, and I do plenty of XC in it, albeit more slowly than the bigger ships. With a chute plus proper fitting and padding, I find the seat comfortable enough for 5+ hours. I've had several 300km flights in it the way OLC counts, but am still trying for a 300km pre-declared triangle. I do get locked out of XC on days with lowish tops and widely spaced thermals, while the 15-18m ships keep on going.

Sorry Moshe. I forgot it is in Vermont. Have good flights this season.

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 5:40:51 AM UTC-7, Discus 44 wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 9:44:25 AM UTC-7, wrote:
That's me. Vermont, not Maine :-)

Fun to fly, and I do plenty of XC in it, albeit more slowly than the bigger ships. With a chute plus proper fitting and padding, I find the seat comfortable enough for 5+ hours. I've had several 300km flights in it the way OLC counts, but am still trying for a 300km pre-declared triangle. I do get locked out of XC on days with lowish tops and widely spaced thermals, while the 15-18m ships keep on going.

Sorry Moshe. I forgot it is in Vermont. Have good flights this season.

Any advice for an upstart? I recently purchased #034 (AC-4C) and have been doing upgrades, FLARM, LXNav S100, Disk Brake, wet sand, and general cleanup. Low time solo student, haven't flown it yet, but soon very soon.

Wondering about landing and handling, stall, spins, etc. etc. any points to be concern with when going XC? Suggested Padding, rigging?

Your time is appreciated.

John Smith

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 2:06:54 PM UTC-4, John Smith wrote:
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 5:40:51 AM UTC-7, Discus 44 wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 9:44:25 AM UTC-7, wrote:
That's me. Vermont, not Maine :-)

Fun to fly, and I do plenty of XC in it, albeit more slowly than the bigger ships. With a chute plus proper fitting and padding, I find the seat comfortable enough for 5+ hours. I've had several 300km flights in it the way OLC counts, but am still trying for a 300km pre-declared triangle. I do get locked out of XC on days with lowish tops and widely spaced thermals, while the 15-18m ships keep on going.

Sorry Moshe. I forgot it is in Vermont. Have good flights this season..

Any advice for an upstart? I recently purchased #034 (AC-4C) and have been doing upgrades, FLARM, LXNav S100, Disk Brake, wet sand, and general cleanup. Low time solo student, haven't flown it yet, but soon very soon.

Wondering about landing and handling, stall, spins, etc. etc. any points to be concern with when going XC? Suggested Padding, rigging?

Your time is appreciated.

John Smith

Hey John Smith... Check out https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ac4

They discontinued the yahoo group for AC-4 gliders late last year (2019). I have a question about the BRS (parachute/rocket) in our AC-4B. It is nearing the end of its 24 year service life, and I'm wondering it it is a "requirement" to keep it in the glider, or whether we could just remove it and fly without. Obviously we can, the question is whether it is required to be in the glider for the IA to pass it during an annual. Does anyone have experience with this situation? The IA we are using doesn't seem to think he can pass it if the parachute isn't installed and up-to-date.

Thanks,

Stephen

On Monday, January 27, 2020 at 3:26:10 PM UTC-5, wrote:
They discontinued the yahoo group for AC-4 gliders late last year (2019). I have a question about the BRS (parachute/rocket) in our AC-4B. It is nearing the end of its 24 year service life, and I'm wondering it it is a "requirement" to keep it in the glider, or whether we could just remove it and fly without. Obviously we can, the question is whether it is required to be in the glider for the IA to pass it during an annual. Does anyone have experience with this situation? The IA we are using doesn't seem to think he can pass it if the parachute isn't installed and up-to-date.

Thanks,

Stephen

It may not be too late - got this from Yahoo Groups Jan 10th. I've migrated my groups. It might be worth an e-mail, particularly if you know who the group owner was. Even if not, if you push the flight safety aspect of the information, you might get lucky. It's just an e-mail....

"Hi Yahoo Member,

In recent weeks, we communicated the latest changes to Yahoo Groups and explained how to request a download of any content you’ve previously posted to the platform. Some Groups users asked us for more time, and in response to these requests, we have decided to extend the deadline. Groups users now have until Friday, January 31, 2020 at 11:59pm PST to submit a request for their data.

We have now taken down all user content from the Yahoo Groups website. However, we will continue to accept users’ requests for their data until January 31, 2020, and will ensure these have been fulfilled prior to deleting the data.

For additional support, users can email and our team will troubleshoot any issues."

Stephen,

Check the minimum equipment list in the flight manual, and the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet. If it's not listed there, then there should not be a requirement to have it installed.

On Monday, January 27, 2020 at 1:59:30 PM UTC-8, SoaringXCellence wrote:
Stephen,

Check the minimum equipment list in the flight manual, and the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet. If it's not listed there, then there should not be a requirement to have it installed.

I can't find a TCDS for the Russia, so it must be experimental only, that should make it even easier to do without the ballistic system.

On Monday, January 27, 2020 at 5:04:33 PM UTC-5, SoaringXCellence wrote:
On Monday, January 27, 2020 at 1:59:30 PM UTC-8, SoaringXCellence wrote:
Stephen,

Check the minimum equipment list in the flight manual, and the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet. If it's not listed there, then there should not be a requirement to have it installed.

I can't find a TCDS for the Russia, so it must be experimental only, that should make it even easier to do without the ballistic system.

Here is the link to the TCDS

http://www.lightwing.ch/fileadmin/do...AC4_issue3.pdf