Is the ASW-27B still being made?

I've seen conflicting reports, some of which say it's been replaced in production by the ASG-29.

Thanks

On 5/11/2013 8:23 AM, Rick Lake wrote:
I've seen conflicting reports, some of which say it's been replaced
in production by the ASG-29.

It's a 20+ year-old design. Order a DuckHawk and be happier. If the
DuckHawk seems unproven to you, buy a used 27B, fly it until you decide
you should order a DuckHawk, continue to fly it while you wait your
glider to be built, then sell the 27B.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

On May 11, 9:49*am, Eric Greenwell wrote:

It's a 20+ year-old design...

Yes, but it does incorporate a huge amount of engineering, data,
practice, and empirical results pertaining to soaring performance and
(perhaps more importantly) crashworthiness. They turned a lot of test
articles into little white flakes in order to expand the envelope of
impact energies within which you could walk away from a crash. I don't
think you can reasonably expect to get that kind of protection from
one-off ships optimized for uber-performance. It is no accident that
all current ASx designs build upon the design principles established
by and developed for the ASW-24 and -27.

Thanks, Bob K.

On Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:49:47 AM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 5/11/2013 8:23 AM, Rick Lake wrote:

I've seen conflicting reports, some of which say it's been replaced

in production by the ASG-29.



It's a 20+ year-old design.
Yes, But it has been updated. Further, It is still competitive. It beat the Duckhawk at the Nationals. I think you have it backwards; Find a used DH and order a new 27B .

Eric Greenwell

On May 11, 8:23*am, Rick Lake wrote:
I've seen conflicting reports, some of which say it's been
replaced in production by the ASG-29.

It depends on how you count. If you look at the official paperwork,
ASG-29s are actually certificated as variants of the ASW-27, under the
same type certificate.

Thanks, Bob K.

On 5/11/2013 2:48 PM, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On May 11, 9:49 am, Eric Greenwell wrote:

It's a 20+ year-old design...

Yes, but it does incorporate a huge amount of engineering, data,
practice, and empirical results pertaining to soaring performance and
(perhaps more importantly) crashworthiness. They turned a lot of test
articles into little white flakes in order to expand the envelope of
impact energies within which you could walk away from a crash. I don't
think you can reasonably expect to get that kind of protection from
one-off ships optimized for uber-performance. It is no accident that
all current ASx designs build upon the design principles established
by and developed for the ASW-24 and -27.

The ASW 24 was great leap ahead in crash protection, in my opinion, and
they incorporated that knowledge into their later designs. Crash
protection was one of the reasons I selected the ASH 26 E twenty years
ago. It was a new design then, just like the 27!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

On 5/11/2013 2:55 PM, K wrote:
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:49:47 AM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 5/11/2013 8:23 AM, Rick Lake wrote:

I've seen conflicting reports, some of which say it's been
replaced

in production by the ASG-29.



It's a 20+ year-old design.
Yes, But it has been updated. Further, It is still competitive. It
beat the Duckhawk at the Nationals. I think you have it backwards;
Find a used DH and order a new 27B .

I have it frontwards: the OP can find and buy a used 27B, but not a used
DuckHawk. He'll have a lot of fun in a great glider while he waits to
see how the DuckHawk, and possibly other new 15 M gliders shake out,
then likely sell it at a good price if he decides to switch.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

On Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:23:05 AM UTC-5, Rick Lake wrote:
I've seen conflicting reports, some of which say it's been replaced in production by the ASG-29.



Thanks

My understanding from John Murray (US agent) and the AS website is, yes, i.e. if you want a 27 they will build it for you. The 27 is close to 100 lbs lighter than the 29 in 15 meter mode, but does not have quite as high a top wingloading (11.5 not 12.5). Otherwise, I gather a current production 27 and a 29 - 15 are nearly identical aerodynamically. They are rare because almost nobody is ordering them -- or ASW28 / D2 either. Despite all the complaining about how expensive gliders are, faced with the decision, almost all orders are for 18 m gliders, some with dual 15 m wingtips, and most with engines too!

John Cochrane

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 6:53:08 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:23:05 AM UTC-5, Rick Lake wrote:

I've seen conflicting reports, some of which say it's been replaced in production by the ASG-29.







Thanks



My understanding from John Murray (US agent) and the AS website is, yes, i.e. if you want a 27 they will build it for you. The 27 is close to 100 lbs lighter than the 29 in 15 meter mode, but does not have quite as high a top wingloading (11.5 not 12.5). Otherwise, I gather a current production 27 and a 29 - 15 are nearly identical aerodynamically. They are rare because almost nobody is ordering them -- or ASW28 / D2 either. Despite all the complaining about how expensive gliders are, faced with the decision, almost all orders are for 18 m gliders, some with dual 15 m wingtips, and most with engines too!



John Cochrane

Well, since I have owned a ASW 27b(540 lbs empty and now own a ASG 29(585 lbs empty), their is only a 45 pound difference between them in 15 meter configuration with basic instruments. But in 15 Meter, the 29 has a 99 sq ft wing V 96 sg ft wing for the 27. Also the 29 has the exact same fuselage mold as the 27 except the rudder is slightly larger. The wing of the 29 is made as a 18 meter wing and then cut. The 15 M tips have their own mold. I was in the AS factory and watched the 15 M tip molds being unwrapped as they had just finished them. Yes, the 29 enjoys the highest wing loading of both models, its max wing loading is 12.2 lbs (not 12.5 lbs). But with a larger area to carry it @ 99 sg ft. it still climbs very well.
The 29's wing is very stiff in 15 Meter where the 27 wing flexes a lot more.. but in 18 Meter the flex is great. KS and I have done comparison glides with his 27 v my 29. To keep it simply, in Uvalde conditions, he felt the 29 had a 40 point advantage each day against the 27. Yes, its a ASW 27-18 on the paperwork, but when you look at the wing and compare it to a 27 wing (also the winglets as they are different), their are differences.
When AS build the 29, I was told by the factory, that it would equal the 27 in performance in 15 M, but not be better. It runs real good to 95 kts loaded, but seems to fall off a little after 95 kts compared to the 27.
The 27 does have better handling feel in 15 M V the 29 in 15 M IMHO. It also thermals as good but thermaling it is slightly different than the 27.
Anyway numbers are numbers but we should try not be sloppy about them as my past Professors would enjoy correcting my paperwork when I was. To many times are these posts where folks talk about the glider that won and how great it is. Well, its the guy/girl sitting in any modern racer is what makes the difference, and they should be the ones to get the credit where credit is due. As Renner said more than once "I was just lucky, thats all", something simple yet honest.
Just get a modern 15 Meter ship, if you can. If not and you really want to race, start with a Club Class glider. They got some talent at the top of their score sheet to learn and race against.

Enjoy, #711.

On Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:23:05 AM UTC-5, Rick Lake wrote:
I've seen conflicting reports, some of which say it's been replaced in production by the ASG-29.



Thanks

Thanks for all the opinions and advice guys!

Rick Lake