What First Glider to own?

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 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 Friday, December 10, 2010 8:34:44 AM UTC-8, Sparkorama wrote:

...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...

No, that's not how it was.

Bob K.