A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ASH 26E VS DG 808C



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2  
Old October 26th 06, 06:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
JS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,384
Default ASH 26E VS DG 808C

Have not flown the DG800, just 300/500/600/1000. All those flew
nicely. One thing I found out about the AS-W26 is that it's a BEAUTIFUL
flying glider... Like an oversized 27, with perhaps an even more
comfortable cockpit. Coordination seems perfect (it has a big enough
rudder).
Mine has the heavier wings (they'll chase your friends away unless
you have a one-man rigger) but higher MGW and therefore higher maximum
wing loading. The lower serial numbers are also certified Experimental
in the USA, handy unless you're sending it overseas.
The LONG trailer is going to get my "lift kit" mod, a 2" square steel
tube between the axle and the trailer chassis. This helps with ground
clearance and is hardly noticeable for rigging.
Jim

  #3  
Old October 27th 06, 01:13 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Graeme Cant
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default ASH 26E VS DG 808C

JS wrote:

The LONG trailer is going to get my "lift kit" mod, a 2" square steel
tube between the axle and the trailer chassis. This helps with ground
clearance and is hardly noticeable for rigging.
Jim


Thanks for that idea!

My 800 has one piece wings and a trailer longer than an ASH-25's. I've
been wondering how to help it over drains and speed bumps.

GC
  #4  
Old October 27th 06, 06:59 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,096
Default ASH 26E VS DG 808C

JS wrote:
Have not flown the DG800, just 300/500/600/1000. All those flew
nicely. One thing I found out about the AS-W26 is that it's a BEAUTIFUL
flying glider... Like an oversized 27, with perhaps an even more
comfortable cockpit. Coordination seems perfect (it has a big enough
rudder).
Mine has the heavier wings (they'll chase your friends away unless
you have a one-man rigger) but higher MGW and therefore higher maximum
wing loading. The lower serial numbers are also certified Experimental
in the USA, handy unless you're sending it overseas.
The LONG trailer is going to get my "lift kit" mod, a 2" square steel
tube between the axle and the trailer chassis. This helps with ground
clearance and is hardly noticeable for rigging.


I suggest you tow it around for a couple thousand miles before making
any changes, as you might discover it's not so bad! I've towed my Cobra
trailer behind our 23 foot motorhome (which has a moderate overhang) for
100,00+ miles all over the country. The hitch height is set so the
trailer is slightly higher in the back(about 1"). The back end drags
occasionally going in and out of parking lots and gas stations, but it
doesn't harm the trailer because it's designed to accept that abuse. A
vehicle with a shorter overhang, like a car, mini-van, or SUV, wouldn't
drag it as often.

I did finally wear out those little aluminum skids on the rear end this
year, but replacements are on the way.


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

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org
  #5  
Old October 27th 06, 01:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Graeme Cant
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default ASH 26E VS DG 808C

Eric Greenwell wrote:

I suggest you tow it around for a couple thousand miles before making
any changes, as you might discover it's not so bad! I've towed my Cobra
trailer behind our 23 foot motorhome (which has a moderate overhang) for
100,00+ miles all over the country. The hitch height is set so the
trailer is slightly higher in the back(about 1"). The back end drags
occasionally going in and out of parking lots and gas stations, but it
doesn't harm the trailer because it's designed to accept that abuse. A
vehicle with a shorter overhang, like a car, mini-van, or SUV, wouldn't
drag it as often.

I did finally wear out those little aluminum skids on the rear end this
year, but replacements are on the way.


I've towed mine for a little over 1000km and I've dragged the skids
somewhere each trip regardless of how careful I am about going over
stuff diagonally. Even if it does it nowhere else, it does it on the
drain at the entrance to the Club's field.

I'm stuck with a fixed tow ball height so I think JS's suggestion is a
good idea.

GC


  #6  
Old October 28th 06, 08:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
bumper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 322
Default ASH 26E VS DG 808C

"Gary Evans" wrote in message
...


A couple of DG800 advantages that bumper overlooked.

1) An engine that doesn't cost $17000 to replace.
2) An engine that can be worked on with out having
to remove it from the fuselage. While this may not
seem like something you will ever have to do you'll
want to keep a couple of big friends around for spark
plugs changes. I believe there were at least three
engines pulled for one problem or another at this years
ASA Parowan camp. They also had their own cart to haul
the engines around for repairs but I'm not sure if
thats a standard 26 option.
3) A superior engine management system (DEI) with manual
back up.

IMO the engine related issues sum up the big difference
between these two ships as performance both in glide
and under power are way similar. The 26 has a smoother
engine and the 800 has one, which is easier and cheaper
to maintain. They are both state of the art ships and
you won't be sorry for buying either.
DG has done a pretty fair comparison between the 26/800/Ventus
2cM that can be viewed here -
http://tinyurl.com/yz4shs



Gary,



I agree that performance wise they're essentially equal. On your other
points:



1) The 17K figure may seem a lot, however, the need to completely replace
one of these engines is quite rare. Replacing the Wankel's major engine
parts costs around $8K Euro. Those few cases were this was necessary were
most likely due to oil starvation and a Chernobyl type melt down. You do
need to keep oil in the tank and pay attention to engine temperatures.



Otherwise the Wankel, besides having small size which allows a narrow
fuselage, has excellent power density and vibration free smoothness. The
Wankel is also remarkably reliable and trouble free. The lack of vibration
means that stuff doesn't crack, break or fall off the motor and things
nearby - - a major positive attribute as compared to most 2-strokes.





I heard that two of the 26E engines pulled at Parowan where to replace
broken drive belts. This is an unusual occurrence, as the Wankel, with it's
multiple smaller power pulses per revolution, is gentle to the drive train
as compared to a 2-stroke. There was talk of a change in formulation used in
manufacturing the Gates Poly-Chain drive belts. AFAIK, the reason for this
breakage hasn't been 100% resolved/confirmed. I do know that some owners
have 150 hours and more with no drive belt issues. For the whole 26E fleet,
I'm aware of only the Parowan failures and one prior failure caused by a
bearing failure in one of the guide pulleys. Belt failures have occurred on
the 2-stroke powered ships as well, a backfire on start up will do the deed.



2) Yup, on my 26E the engine must be pulled to change plugs. There is a
factory mod that provides an access hole to allow plug service without
pulling the engine. It's retrofitable to my ship, but since I've never had
to service the plugs, I don't plan on adding this mod. Besides, the engine
package is easy enough to remove and can be done solo in about an hour
(maybe half that with good help). Remove 3 bolts, 3 wiring cable plugs, a
couple of Bowden cable connections (throttle and prop stop) and a fuel line.
A "cherry picker" engine hoist is needed if removing the engine solo. I've
only done this once in the 4 years and 23 engine hours I've had the ship,
but plan on doing it for the next annual just to look at things.



3) When shopping, I considered DG's DEI engine control a plus, but after
using the simple ILEC engine control, as used on the 26E and many other
self-launch gliders, I'm not so sure. To put away the prop on the 26E:



a- turn off ignition

b- when prop stops, engage manual prop-stop lever (this swings a rubber
stopper into the prop arc) and nose over slightly to windmill prop into stop
as viewed in rear view mirror.

c- push pylon switch down until prop just disappears from view in mirror
(this is the cool down position), at thermalling speeds, the additional drag
caused by the partially extended prop/radiator is minimal and still allows
reasonable climb performance.

d- In my ship, the cool down period takes 3 - 4 minutes. After observing a 2
C drop in engine coolant temp, push switch to retract prop fully.



Simple, reliable, almost no maintenance required . . . even a cave man
could do it. A DEI? Kind of like the automatic parking option on the new
Lexus - - why bother? (g)



I agree the most prominent mechanical difference between these two ships is
the power train. I do not agree that the DG's 2-stroke engine is easier and
cheaper to maintain. Given, replacing a 2-stroke engine is much less
expensive than replacing the Wankel. However, this needs to be tempered by
the fact that the Wankel will hardly need replacement if operated with
reasonable care and its on-going maintenance is usually less expensive.



After talking to Tom and Billy Stowers (High Country Soaring, and who have
worked on all manner of these ships), my impression is that the 2-stroke
maintenance issues they experience is an order of magnitude greater with
2-strokes than on the Wankel powered ships. This is also borne out by a
check of the relevant AD's. The ASH26E has but two airworthiness directives
(rotor cooling fan and muffler), both early-on teething problems that were
resolved years ago.



The many more subtle differences between the two ships are perhaps more
subjective. I talked with Larry Mansberger about the "beneath the skin"
differences between DG and Schleicher as I was not in a position to take a
chain saw and see for myself. Keeping in mind that this was several years
ago and the wing sections I saw were made prior to current DG factory
ownership, the innards of the Schleicher wing looked to be assembled with
the same care and attention to detail as the outer parts the customer
normally sees - - not so inside the DG wing.



Many of the DG's at Minden have gel-coat surface cracks on the wings,
commonly around the spoiler boxes. I haven't seen this on Schleichers,
though some earlier 26E's did show the wing spar profile after several
years - - later versions, my 2002 model included, have not done this - so
far. Subjectively, the 26E cockpit finish is nicer and ergonomics, even for
taller pilots, is excellent. The DG's pigeon-toed rudder pedals, when I was
trying it on, gave me foot cramps.



I've asked several DG800 series owners, on the Minden ramp, why they chose
the DG-800 series over the ASH26E. At the time, purchase cost was
essentially the same for either ship and probably is still close. By a large
margin the answer was availability, the delivery wait for the 26E then being
two years, more than double that for the DG at the time. For one DG owner,
the 800's two piece wing was a deciding factor (the 26E's one piece wing
means the trailer must be longer, at about 35").



All that said, owners of both these ships seem happy with their decisions,
and that's what really counts. My strong bias in favor of the ASH26E may
well be indicative of a underlying personality flaw (g), I have little
tolerance for things mechanical that could have, or should have, been done
better.





bumper


  #7  
Old October 28th 06, 08:59 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 194
Default Antares 20E vs. ASH 26E VS DG 808C

In the Antares 20E, to extend and start the motor:

Push the power control forward.
10 seconds later you're under power.
THATS ALL.

To retract the motor:

Pop up the little mirror
Pull the power control back.
For your entertainment, watch the prop step to vertical and
disappear.
Put away the little mirror.
15 seconds later you're clean.

No cool-down cycle.
No prop-stop fiddling.
No multiple controls to operate.
No priming fiddling or "automatic" primer flooding.
No fussing with throttle setting to start.
No fuel valve.
No ignition switch to forget (laugh, but many times per year this
happens).
No starter button.
No engine master switch.
No extension/retraction controls.
No backfires.
No belt to break or adjust.
No manual pnuematic input switching.
No fun at all, eh ?

See ya, Dave
http://www.nadler.com

PS: You can leave the little mirror out if that's still too complicated
!

PPS: OK, its true, you do have to turn it on before you go flying.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.