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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Antares 20E vs. ASH 26E VS DG 808C
wrote:
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. PS: It was pointed out that I forgot: NO GASOLINE AND NO GASOLINE FUMES ! See ya, Dave |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Antares 20E vs. ASH 26E VS DG 808C
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Antares 20E vs. ASH 26E VS DG 808C
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|