Bruce Hoult wrote:

Well, the good news is that 32:1 gliders are cheap and plentiful.


Better equipment means one can fly further on more days with
less experience.

Most people who say things like this seem to think you need considerably
*more* than Ka6/PW5 performance to go cross country. Are you saying
that it is in fact enough? (I think it is)

-- Bruce

At Avenal, 32:1 is enough a lot of the time. And on the days
when 32:1 isn't enough, 50:1 usually isn't enough either.

Okay. How about some terms? What is cross-country?
I'd say any flight where some part of the flight is beyond
final glide back to the departure airport is a cross-country.
A bit ambiguous, but hey, I'm going with it.

ANSWER:
-------

"Seldom" an SGS 2-33 is enough. "Much more often" a DG-1000 is
enough.

Given the same pilot experience:

With a tailwind, frequent markers, high thermals (AGL), benign
terrain, and a short distance (in that order of importance)
I think a 2-33 is fine. Heck, even some lower thermals are fine
if they are frequent enough (the southeast US states seem to have this
quite a bit). This seems to be a recipe for 1-26 cross-countries
that I've read about.

Into a headwind, no markers, low thermals, unlandable terrain,
and a long way to go make a DG-1000 look much more attractive.
Somewhere in between, the Blanik L-13 and the Grob-103 are going to
be ok.

1. Tailwind/headwind has a HUGE effect on glide if you
have a curvy polar.

2. Markers are the difference between a no-brainer "connect-the-dots"
flight and searching the ground for sources.

3. Thermal height determines if you are going to be able to
make it to the next thermal, or land out.

4. Benign terrain gives you more time to look for lift instead of
worrying about landing out.

5. Distance = pilot fatigue. A 300km in a 40:1 sailplane seems to
take twice the time 20:1 will take, from what I've read of pilots
who've tried both.

Good L/D, flatness of the polar, and ease of trailering really
help increase the number of soarable days (given the same experience
level).

From my point of view, I started soaring in the winter. Lift
was just weak as could be for my first 5 days/sessions. Then there
was a fantastic day with two huge cumulus clouds and my two
friends went back and forth between them in a 2-33 and 1-26 while
I did 3 hours of ground training for my license! But I had my eye
on the PW-5, and the insurance required a PPL-glider to fly it.

So I got a license, and got in. Boy what a difference! I could
really explore the area, and even though the L-13 was pretty good,
I was terrified of landing out in the huge metal thing with nuts
and bolts to disassemble (yikes!). The PW-5 was something two
small/weak people could lift over a fence (pieces anyway)!

That glider really eliminated a lot of hard "cost based"
decisions for me. If it had been a $50,000 glider I never
WOULD have gone into some of those valleys, and if
it was a $6,000 glider, I never COULD have gone there (well,
on that day anyway). And the PW-5 was different from the
1-26, because the stick controlled the airspeed, not JUST the
vario

As it was I got 30-40 flights for about $350 for my share for the
syndicate for the year (about $10 a flight in rent). And I got
a lot further, with less fatigue, with less training, on marginal
days, than in a 1-26.

So there are a LOT of gliders that are between $10,000-$20,000
that are 30:1 to 40:1 in glide, and are pretty easy to disassemble.
Beyond that, there are some with flaps and ballast and retract,
but the added cost of insurance, maintenance, and training
haven't yet met my price point.

Do I think a 30:1 ship is enough for me for X-C? Usually. Could I
do an X-C in a 20:1 ship? Well, a downwind dash with markers
and high thermals close together, 30NM to Lost Hills, sure. But who
wants to wait around for those conditions?