What First Glider to own?

When I get the L plates off my Kestrel 19 I will be able to comment.
(Only had her for a year now) I would second the comment about not using
one as a first glider. While everything in the cockpit is logical and
all that, it is a busy place. Also - she is an open class glider so you
have to be a lot further ahead of the glider at all times.

By contrast - my very early Std Cirrus is a honey to fly as long as you
keep away from the edges of the envelope. Even if you go outside those -
She spins easily and predictably. Recovers just as easily and
predictably. Don't even think about it in the Kestrel. Workload flying
the Kestrel is lower on XC - because the L/D is so much better - but
landing and takeoff phases require more.

In my opinion - a 15m un-flapped glass glider is the best place to
start. Newer is better than older because the LS8 and Discus 2 etc. have
the benefit of 30 years of experience in controllability etc. Very nice
to have - but not essential.

Bruce

On 2010/12/08 1:17 PM, Colin Roney wrote:
The Kestrel 19 is not a glider for the inexperienced.
It has a busy cockpit and demanding flight envelope to get the glider
correctly configured for the various flight phases.
It is not glider that can be rushed in the circuit and landing phases.
The glider needs space and time and requires the pilot to keep their
brains well ahead of the game.
Speak to some of the `old`Kestrel boys and they will put you straight!
Colin








At 08:41 08 December 2010, Mike wrote:
On Dec 7, 9:50=A0pm, Dave Lawley wrote:
I have been considering this same subject myself.

A Libelle is a good option if you can stand the horrible ugliness of
the
things, and what is a fairly tight cockpit, regardless of some others
statements.

Ditto club Libelle.

H301 Hornet is good, with better performance, water ballst (100L) and
muc=
h
more acceptable looks than a Libelle.

ASW15 is pretty cool but 15B is a better option, has bigger cockpit
length, and takes a small ammount of water ballast (50L). A nose hook
is
=
a
big plus for these as thay have an offset compromise hook as standard.

Astirs are ghastly in terms of control force/responsiveness,
but strongly built, quite reliable and easy to fly.

LS1 series excellent for the smaller pilot.

STD Cirrus, later models with extra washout are better for low hours
pilots, but stick free elevator stability is poor. On one occasion a
pilo=
t
who undid his straps to retrive a dropped object was thrown out of the
glider thru the canopy when he hit a bump and it went inverted.
Luckily
h=
e
was wearing a chute(Not his normal practice) One literally cant take
ones
hand off the stick!

Std Jantar1 =A0pretty good all round.

Ditto for PIK20b/d if you dont mind flaps, big cockpit.

If you can go a bit more then without a doubt an LS4 is the nicest I
have
flown. Whilst the performance is slighly less tha a Discus the feel
for
the air is much better, and the cockpit much larger than even a DIscus
B.

I have come to the conclusion that for me a Kestrel H401 is the best
option, has equal performance to Discus, and falls on the edge of the
price range. Has flaps and a somewhat busy but large cockpit layout.
=A0E=
asy
to fly.

I would avoid the following like the plague.

Phoebus, all models spins readily undercarriage failiures common.

Diamant, all models. C of G hook only all moving tail, tiny cockpit,
uglier than even Libelle.

Good luck and regards

Dave Lawley

At 18:51 06 December 2010, Sparkorama wrote:





Hagbard Celine;756949 Wrote:
That's a nice and diverse fleet you have there! As to getting your
own
glider, in that price range you can look at several older glass
standard class ships. In this group I include:
Schempp-Hirth Standard Cirrus
Schleicher ASW-15 / ASW-15B
Glasflugel 201 / 201B Standard Libelle
Rolladen-Schneider LS-1C / LS-1D
SZD Standard Jantar 1

They all have their strengths and weaknesses, to me none of the
weaknesses would be deal breakers. If you look at Paul Bickles
"Polars
Of Eight" and Richard Johnsons flight test evaluations you'll
find
that they all have very (very) similar performance. At this point
the
variation in the condition of an individual glider would probably
account for a greater performance difference than any that might be
inherent in the design.

You might also find an LS-1F or DG-100 in this price range. If
you're
alright with the heavier rigging an Open Cirrus would be an option
too. I don't know enough about the Phoebus B and C to offer any
advice
on their flying qualities and parts support. Maybe some owners can
weigh in? A Grob 102 Astir CS or CS-77 would probably fall into
this
price range too. The Grobs are a bit sluggish in terms of control
response and they are more difficult to rig than they need to be (a
Libelle type rigging tool would make them much easier to assemble)
but
they are roomy and have decent performance. I've heard differing
experiences when it comes to parts support. We needed a new rudder
for
our club's single Grob and some parts for the airbrake system a
few
years ago and I got them from Linder with no trouble but I've also
talked to people who haven't been as lucky.

The Soaring Magazine Sailplane Directory issue has a summary by
Derek
Piggott of these gliders and many others that could be helpful. He
offers a more in-depth evaluation of a number of gliders in
"Gliding
Safety" if you can find a copy.

If you can find any obliging owners, try them on for size. Your
height, weight and leg/torso proportions will probably rule some of
them out for you. (example: I had enough headroom and fit alright
lengthwise in the Libelle but still found it lacked shoulder room
and
felt too cramped on the other hand I was comfortable in my clubs
Standard Jantar but I was one of the few who was, many said it
didn't
seem to be designed for human beings!)

As I've owned an ASW-15B for five years I can give you some more
detailed information on that particular glider: roomier than a
Libelle
but a bit more cramped than the L-33, very docile at low speeds and
not inclined to spin, quite powerful airbrakes, light ailerons
(both
in terms of aerodynamic loads and system friction), a ridiculous
amount of rudder authority, although the gear handle is on the same
side as the airbrake handle there is little chance of confusing one
for the other because they are widely separated (when you look
inside
a 15 it's pretty obvious it was designed as a fixed gear as per
the
standard class regs of the time and then changed over to
retractable
as an afterthought), the long one-piece removable canopy is a bit
of
a
pain as you really need someone to help close it for you before
flight, it has an all-flying tail but it was properly designed so
it
isn't twitchy at all, lastly I've found that when I've needed
any
parts, TN's or general advice John Murry at Eastern Sailplane has
been
extremely helpful. It's also pretty easy to rig. I've shared the
field
with two Libelle owners and I usually get the 15 together and ready
to
fly quicker than they do...

Since you mentioned the IS-29 I was wondering if you were
considering
getting a metal ship and tying it down outside? If I was in this
situation I would seriously consider the Schweizer 1-35 myself.

I was only considering the IS-29 since there is one for sale and
originally I was thinking that a metal ship would be easier to
maintain
and somewhat bulletproof. As of now, I'm not sure if those are
correct
assumptions.

--
Sparkorama- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have heard some horror stories about the Phoebus, from people that
had heard stories, but never flown one. Truth is the Phoebus is a
decent first sailplane for a private pilot with some Grob experience
and average skills.

My Phoebus C was one of the most docile sailplanes I have ever flown
and had not one bad quality. Everyone I know that has actually flown a
Phoebus (A,B, or C), including and usually being low time pilots,
report the same. If one is concerned, start with the CG in a forward
position.

The landing gear is not a problem. My understanding is that it was
made to be sacrificial when very rough landings were made, protecting
the fus from major damage.

For more Phoebus info: http://phoebus.vassel.com/site_page_2511/.

Mike



--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57

I'll put in a good word for the Grob 102 STD III.

A few negative comments were made about it's rigging and control
forces and I dispute both those claims.

Control forces are light and harmonious, I routinely fly with my hand
half way down the sitck, not needing all of the leverage. Performance
is moderate but comparable to a std cirrus. It is a very well behaved
glider, with good stall characteristics, so you can thermal quite
agressively without worry about spins.

Rigging is reputed to be hard, but is not. The tricks are different
than a LG/ASW/Discus though. The wings are somewhat heavy, but not
extreme. I do use a wing dolly to rig and it takes 15 mins to put the
wings and tail on. I bought my Grob at Sterling and the previous
owner gave me a rigging lesson. It was easy from there on.

On the general suggestions:
1) Do not buy an inactive glider. There might be all kinds of
problems and being a new owner will be hard.
2) Do not buy a bad trailer. This means one that is non road worthy,
or one that makes rigging difficult.
3) Buy a glider that is easy and convient to operate. Even if the
condition or performance is worse that the other option. People who
have to struggle to rig or fly sit on the ground a lot.

Todd Smith
3S

On Dec 8, 9:37*am, toad wrote:
I'll put in a good word for the Grob 102 STD III.

A few negative comments were made about it's rigging and control
forces and I dispute both those claims.

Control forces are light and harmonious, I routinely fly with my hand
half way down the sitck, not needing all of the leverage. Performance
is moderate but comparable to a std cirrus. It is a very well behaved
glider, with good stall characteristics, so you can thermal quite
agressively without worry about spins.

Rigging is reputed to be hard, but is not. *The tricks are different
than a LG/ASW/Discus though. *The wings are somewhat heavy, but not
extreme. *I do use a wing dolly to rig and it takes 15 mins to put the
wings and tail on. *I bought my Grob at Sterling and the previous
owner gave me a rigging lesson. *It was easy from there on.

On the general suggestions:
1) Do not buy an inactive glider. *There might be all kinds of
problems and being a new owner will be hard.
2) Do not buy a bad trailer. *This means one that is non road worthy,
or one that makes rigging difficult.
3) Buy a glider that is easy and convient to operate. Even if the
condition or performance is worse that the other option. *People who
have to struggle to rig or fly sit on the ground a lot.

Todd Smith
3S

I'll plug the Jantar Standard as a first sailplane. I have the "2"
model (SZD-48-1) purchased when I was a 100 hour pilot. It is easy to
fly of you come from glass trainers, has a decent glide approaching
40:1, and is very strong (VNE is 154 kts). Mine rigs easily, spoiler
controls are auto-hook up while the ailerons and elevator use secure
sliding/detent mechanisms that are easy to reach. The gear is very
tall and robust. It has top and bottom airbrakes for great glidepath
control. Make sure you sit in one - long arms are plus. The 1 and 2
models have a two piece canopy while the 3 model is one-piece and
hinged up front. Outside of that and the 3 model is nearly identical
to the 2.

Like other said, a good, functional trailer and the gel-coat condition
are key factors when making a purchase.

/Adam

::quick quote cutdown snip here on my post - just trying to keep the quite size down:::

Again, thank you all so much for this info. As of now, I'm looking at gliders I probably wouldn't have looked at, and rethinking the list. Everyone seems to think the LS4 is the greatest first glider since sliced bread. Interestingly, it appears to be back in production with a company called AMS out of Slovenia.The Libelle looks more attractive, which I never would have considered. It's funny that some think it's horribly ugly and others hold it as beautiful. And I'm on the larger side (5,11 and almost 200lbs) so many have warned I'd fit in it like a surgical glove. Newer ships in partnership are looking more attractive, though I don't know enough people yet at my local club to consider it. I like the low price and lightweight performance of the carbon fiber Sparrowhawk, but I can't find any information about it lately. Seems like their website (windward performance) is a couple years out of date and I don't know if they are even being produced. Naturally, a new one would be out of my price range, but it's certainly an interesting plane and the price is not bad. I like the LAK-12 I saw on wingsandwheels.com, and it's not too highly priced. I like the big name companies, like Glasflugel, or Rolladen-Schneider, and the fact that so many of their gliders are still flying. There's a theory in boats and motorcycles that it's almost never a good idea to buy the first generation of a new design, even from the big boys, and any design that has a long history is a good choice. I would love to see more side by side seating in gliders. I like the Pipistrel Taurus. Very cool self-launcher with arond 40:1 performance and a liquid system for CG that moves fore or aft depending on single or dual pilots. There is now an electric model. I love the idea of self launchers (though almost everyone seems to think they are not great for first gliders), and I admit I like the idea of having them there to sustain if you're in trouble. I know a lot of people think that's a bit like cheating, but safe is good. And I love the BRS all-plane parachutes. Seems to me every plane should have them, mostly for the idea of really impossible places where you can't land out or mid-air collisions. I can't imagine using a regular parachute and actually getting out of the plane. How the hell is that supposed to work while you're wingless and falling out of the sky at an increasing 32 feet per second per second? There's an old Preiss on wingsandwheels.com that looks interesting since it's a side by side, but it's one of the HP-14's I think originally which was converted. It's hard for me to like experimental ships and especially homebuilts. Makes me nervous. I'm sure there are many fine ones out there and by all accounts the HP's were well designed. I just can't help but imagine some joker building the thing in his garage, swilling cheap beer, while his kids are running around stepping on parts and wonder what he missed. I didn't really think much about trailers and rigging until this thread gave me some important info on that. It's a good point that if the thing is a pain to rig, you'll spend more time on the ground than in the air. I have learned about a lot of brands I'd never heard of when I originally got into the sport. One thing's for sure. They're really beautiful and its surprising how well a lot of gliders have kept their value. I am now officially obsessed.

On Dec 10, 8:34*am, Sparkorama
wrote:
I am now officially obsessed.

--
Sparkorama

Well that's the most important thing! :-)

Let me make a couple of comments, speaking as someone who just bought
his first ship in 2007 (and a stroke of luck allowed me to sell it and
buy a better ship in 2008).

1) DO NOT RUSH. TAKE YOUR TIME. I spent 4 months looking for my
first ship and 8 months looking for the second one; and if I did it
all over again I'd take as much (or more) time. You are going to want
to buy a ship you have confidence in, with a trailer that works.
There are a lot of old/abused/weathered airplanes out there (both in
powered-aircraft and in sailplanes). There is NO substitute for an in-
person inspection of the glider before you buy it. I spent the money
to fly to 3 potential aircraft (and drove to a 4th), and I don't
regret a dime of that money being spent. A few months of searching
and a couple of $300 airline tickets are peanuts, compared to a
$20,000 investment and years of flying-time! A pre-buy inspection by
an A&P who's familiar with gliders is also a really really good idea.

2) Try to stick with ships that were produced in enough quantity to
have some kind of support. Some of the "one-off" ships you mentioned
in your last post will be hard to get parts for or keep maintained.
Well-known ships (whether factory-built like the Libelle or homebuilt
like the HP) are going to be less of a headache in the long run.

3) Research the snot out of the gliders you are considering
purchasing. One good place to start are the "Johnson Reports" on the
SSA website. If you're a member, sign in to your account and then
look on the left-hand side of the webpage for "Soaring Magazine", then
"Johnson Reports". Don't believe every word you hear or read online -
lots of people provide "expert" opinions about ships they've never
flown. Find people who've flown a ship, then get their thoughts. If
they love the plane, factor that into their glowing praise and adjust
your expectations downward. If they think the plane is a deathtrap,
factor that into their rants and adjust your expectations upward
(slightly). Also, remember that competition pilots think about
aircraft performance in a different light than most - when I was
buying my DG-300 I was mocked by 1 contest-pilot "because DG stands
for Doesn't Go!". But the performance difference between gliders in
the same class/vintage is often less than 2% - if you're not flying
wingtip to wingtip with someone, you won't notice the difference.
During many days of flying, I have gone farther than my friends who
are flying LS-4's and Discuses (Discii?). A lot of these ships are
within 1 or 2 points of L/D of each other. There's a definite
difference between 35:1 and 40:1, but you'd be hard-pressed to tell
the difference between 38:1 and 40:1 or 39:1 and 42:1. Also (on a
brief tangent), consider your local weather: If you live in an area
with weak or low thermals, consider the glider's minimum sink-rate and
minimum wing-loading. If you live in an area with really strong
conditions, these aren't as big of an issue.

4) Think about safety as much as performance. There are lots of
factors to consider, and lots of tradeoffs:
Automatic control hookups are safer than L'Hotellier fittings, but
they are typically found only on newer/more-expensive ships (note:
manual hookups aren't a deathtrap - they just require more care).
Flaps can get you into tighter landing spaces, but make for a higher
cockpit workload and provide another system that can go wrong.
A well-harmonized control system is arguably safer than a ship with
unbalanced controls (some of the early all-flying-tail sailplanes have
really light elevator stick forces and heavier stick forces in
roll).
Are you comfortable with a CG hook, or do you want a nose-hook (and I
suggest you fly both before you form a strong opinion)? Bigger wing-
spans and older gliders tend to be heavier and harder to rig. They
are also a factor when landing in a field or at an unusual airport, so
think about how likely you are to land out (or how the threat of a bad
landout may change your flying style or options). Is the higher
performance (or in some cases the lower cost) worth the hassle to
you?
The list goes on and on... I suggest you list out all of these
factors (and think of as many as you can), then rate them in order of
importance. For me, I valued automatic hookups and ergonomics quite
highly - so I ended up buying a DG-300 (its one of the earliest modern
fiberglass ships with automatic hookups and a well-contoured
seatpan). Also factor in your "mission objectives" - if you want to
fly long cross-countries or competitions, then other things take on
new emphasis - like the ship's L/D, a relief-tube, off-field landing
performance & safety, etc. If you just like floating around the sky
and enjoying a serene flight, then less-expensive lower-performance
aircraft become more of an option.
[Word to the wise: Don't buy a glider with lower performance just
because you can afford it. You'll outgrow it and get bored with it.
Better to stretch for something that you can grow into; or get into a
partnership with a better glider]

It can be HUGELY beneficial to get all of your preferences down on
paper, and figure out the relative priorities and importance of each
item. Listen to other people's advice, but ultimately you have to
make your own decision on how strongly you should weight each factor.

5) I have a few thoughts/comments about a couple of the ships you
mentioned. Many of them are out of your price range or not generally
abvailable, so I'll skip them; but here are a few opinions:
* The LAK-12s were produced in the Soviet Union. Several were stored
for many years and then imported for cheap after the Iron Curtain
fell. They are not deathtraps, but you should be aware that their
airfoil is an old one (from the 1960's), they don't have some of the
amenities and features of other modern sailplanes, and their wings are
reportedly very heavy (a consideration for rigging & de-rigging).
* For someone's first ship, the LS-4 is definitely near the top of the
list of fiberglass gliders (along with the DG-300, ASW-19, ASW-20,
Pegasus, and 1 or 2 others). Unfortunately, that makes them highly
desirable and hard to find for a good price (unless they've been
abused).
* AMS Flight has recently been implicated in some bad business
practices and possible financial difficulty; so use care. ALSO,
remember the Euro exchange rate - anything you buy from Europe right
now is going to be pricey and require a lot of money to ship/import to
the USA.

Best of luck! Take care,

--Noel

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:35:24 -0800, noel.wade wrote:

3) Research the snot out of the gliders you are considering purchasing.
One good place to start are the "Johnson Reports" on the SSA website.

Good advice.

A couple more places to look: if you're considering older gliders, search
out a copy of the first edition of George Moffatt's "Winning on the Wind"
and read the first five chapters.

Similarly, any sailplane reviews by Derek Piggott are worth looking at,
but I can't quote book titles - sorry.




If you're a member, sign in to your account and then look on the
left-hand side of the webpage for "Soaring Magazine", then "Johnson
Reports". Don't believe every word you hear or read online - lots of
people provide "expert" opinions about ships they've never flown. Find
people who've flown a ship, then get their thoughts. If they love the
plane, factor that into their glowing praise and adjust your
expectations downward. If they think the plane is a deathtrap, factor
that into their rants and adjust your expectations upward (slightly).
Also, remember that competition pilots think about aircraft performance
in a different light than most - when I was buying my DG-300 I was
mocked by 1 contest-pilot "because DG stands for Doesn't Go!". But the
performance difference between gliders in the same class/vintage is
often less than 2% - if you're not flying wingtip to wingtip with
someone, you won't notice the difference. During many days of flying, I
have gone farther than my friends who are flying LS-4's and Discuses
(Discii?). A lot of these ships are within 1 or 2 points of L/D of each
other. There's a definite difference between 35:1 and 40:1, but you'd
be hard-pressed to tell the difference between 38:1 and 40:1 or 39:1 and
42:1. Also (on a brief tangent), consider your local weather: If you
live in an area with weak or low thermals, consider the glider's minimum
sink-rate and minimum wing-loading. If you live in an area with really
strong conditions, these aren't as big of an issue.

4) Think about safety as much as performance. There are lots of factors
to consider, and lots of tradeoffs: Automatic control hookups are safer
than L'Hotellier fittings, but they are typically found only on
newer/more-expensive ships (note: manual hookups aren't a deathtrap -
they just require more care). Flaps can get you into tighter landing
spaces, but make for a higher cockpit workload and provide another
system that can go wrong. A well-harmonized control system is arguably
safer than a ship with unbalanced controls (some of the early
all-flying-tail sailplanes have really light elevator stick forces and
heavier stick forces in roll).
Are you comfortable with a CG hook, or do you want a nose-hook (and I
suggest you fly both before you form a strong opinion)? Bigger wing-
spans and older gliders tend to be heavier and harder to rig. They are
also a factor when landing in a field or at an unusual airport, so think
about how likely you are to land out (or how the threat of a bad landout
may change your flying style or options). Is the higher performance (or
in some cases the lower cost) worth the hassle to you?
The list goes on and on... I suggest you list out all of these factors
(and think of as many as you can), then rate them in order of
importance. For me, I valued automatic hookups and ergonomics quite
highly - so I ended up buying a DG-300 (its one of the earliest modern
fiberglass ships with automatic hookups and a well-contoured seatpan).
Also factor in your "mission objectives" - if you want to fly long
cross-countries or competitions, then other things take on new emphasis
- like the ship's L/D, a relief-tube, off-field landing performance &
safety, etc. If you just like floating around the sky and enjoying a
serene flight, then less-expensive lower-performance aircraft become
more of an option.
[Word to the wise: Don't buy a glider with lower performance just
because you can afford it. You'll outgrow it and get bored with it.
Better to stretch for something that you can grow into; or get into a
partnership with a better glider]

It can be HUGELY beneficial to get all of your preferences down on
paper, and figure out the relative priorities and importance of each
item. Listen to other people's advice, but ultimately you have to make
your own decision on how strongly you should weight each factor.

5) I have a few thoughts/comments about a couple of the ships you
mentioned. Many of them are out of your price range or not generally
abvailable, so I'll skip them; but here are a few opinions: * The
LAK-12s were produced in the Soviet Union. Several were stored for many
years and then imported for cheap after the Iron Curtain fell. They are
not deathtraps, but you should be aware that their airfoil is an old one
(from the 1960's), they don't have some of the amenities and features of
other modern sailplanes, and their wings are reportedly very heavy (a
consideration for rigging & de-rigging). * For someone's first ship, the
LS-4 is definitely near the top of the list of fiberglass gliders (along
with the DG-300, ASW-19, ASW-20, Pegasus, and 1 or 2 others).
Unfortunately, that makes them highly desirable and hard to find for a
good price (unless they've been abused).
* AMS Flight has recently been implicated in some bad business practices
and possible financial difficulty; so use care. ALSO, remember the Euro
exchange rate - anything you buy from Europe right now is going to be
pricey and require a lot of money to ship/import to the USA.

Best of luck! Take care,

--Noel



--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 22:06:02 +0000, Martin Gregorie wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:35:24 -0800, noel.wade wrote:

3) Research the snot out of the gliders you are considering purchasing.
One good place to start are the "Johnson Reports" on the SSA website.

Good advice.

A couple more places to look: if you're considering older gliders,
search out a copy of the first edition of George Moffatt's "Winning on
the Wind" and read the first five chapters.

Similarly, any sailplane reviews by Derek Piggott are worth looking at,
but I can't quote book titles - sorry.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Dec 10, 9:34*am, Sparkorama
wrote:
It's hard for me to like
experimental ships and especially homebuilts. Makes me nervous.

In USA almost every glider that is not amateur built, but is
Experimental, was built to normal production standard in a factory.
Most of them have a full type certificate it their country of origin.
Some of these receive an experimental certificate when they enter USA
becuse the new owner wants that. Some become experimental on entering
USA because, at the date of import, there was no reciprocal FAA
certification in effect.

Before getting nervous about "Experimental" check what the expermental
cert actually is. If it's not experimental amateur built I don't
think you have much to be nervous about except how it was maintained
and repaired, but the same concerns exist for a glider with a standard
cert.

Before the home builders jump on me, yes I know there are many good
examples of amateur built. There are a few that are good reason to be
nervous.

So a glider built in a factory in say Germany, brought into USA on an
experimental cert and then not damaged or subject to non factory
approved modifications, should be every bit a good as the same glider
with a standard type cert.

Andy

I'd suggest you strike off the Lak 12 as a first glider - but note
that I haven't flown one, so am only commenting from what I've been
told by owners.

It was actually produced in Lithuania, and the Lak factory is still
running so parts wouldn't be a major issue. However, it has real
difficulties as a first glider:

1. Big wings (20 metres I think). Learning big wing handling takes
time, and it's better to have experience in 15m first. You need to be
thinking rather further ahead, which requires more experience flying
something less challenging.

2. Very heavy rigging because the wings are one piece (OK, two piece
in the sense of one each side). No Lak 12 owner says rigging is easy,
though with rigging aids it's acceptable. Without aids its a 3 to 4
person rig and needs some serious muscle.

3. Because of the wing length it's a non-standard trailer at least 12m
long, probably longer. A big beast to tow.

4. Flaps. Others have explained why flaps are for a later glider.

5. Heavy, thus lots of energy to manage on landing. Lak 12s have a
reputation for ground looping, which I believe is largely due to the
pilot being behind the glider rather than thinking ahead of it -
again, a matter of experience.

Having said all that, I'm told it's pleasant to fly and has excellent
XC performance. Really good value on a performance/price measurement.
If I were looking for one (as a 500 hr pilot) I'd want to be satisfied
that the trailer was in first-class condition. I'd also want to help
rig it, to work out whether it would ever leave the trailer in
practice!

The other glider worth commenting on is the Astir CS. I used to own a
share in one, and this was my first glider. Huge cockpit, easy to fly
with no real vices, solid gel coat and sturdily built - will take
minor knocks without structural damage. It felt quite stodgy to fly,
with less feedback through the controls than other gliders (probably
because of its sturdy construction), but with experience in the glider
you could feel what it was doing.

Rigging is in fact very easy, just different. It's a matter of lining
up all the pins and then sliding it together - if it won't go, either
it's not lined up right, or the pins need grease, or the bottom of
the spar is binding on the fuselage (the trick here is to get someone
on hands and knees under the wing root to arch their back up to lift
it slightly). My syndicate partner and I could rig in under 10
minutes, but a helper who didn't understand could make things
impossible by, for example, wiggling the wings to "help".

I also have time in an LS4, which is as nice as everyone says. It's
price/performance ratio is high, though, so I'd probably buy something
cheaper and learn its vices. If you never intended to buy another
glider, an LS4 would be nice enough for all your flying, and that
would justify the high price. If someone gave me an LS4 I'd definitely
keep it!

On Tuesday, December 7, 2010 3:39:02 PM UTC-8, ProfChrisReed wrote:
On Dec 6, 10:41*am, Hagbard Celine wrote:

If you're
alright with the heavier rigging an Open Cirrus would be an option
too.

I've flown an Open Cirrus for some years and am very happy with it.

The heavy rigging is not a problem if you make two trestles - even
better with three (the third a low one to take the wing root while you
position yourself to slide it into the fuselage). I've made a simple
mid-wing dolly to take the weight, and can now easily rig solo.

Cockpit is very roomy, except if you're long in the body you may find
headroom very tight. Long legs are no problem at all.

Note that it's a heavy glider with airbrakes that are good enough but
with little in reserve. Speed control is paramount - 5 kts extra can
more than double your float and get you into trouble in a field
landing. However, if you can fly a steady approach you won't have any
problems, just check out the book figures and don't start adding some
speed "for safety".

Otherwise it's easy to fly and performs well if you don't rush it.
Sink rate rises rapidly beyond 60kt, and if you really want to go
places pull the speed back to 50 when (mine at least) gets better than
40:1.

I just looked at a beautifully restored and updated Open Cirrus and noticed 2 things
1. While I'm 6 ft tall but long legged, I was surprised that my head rested against the canopy. This may be remediable as the ship apparently has a modified floor pan.
2. I found the rudder dampers (while sitting in just the cockpit, unassembled, to be VERY stiff.
Any comments, especially on the latter issue
Thanx