I have limited XC experience in a nominally greater than 1:35 Std Cirrus, and
early XC in a 1:27 Blanik L13, and a couple of flights in a Kestrel 19. Of the
three performance bands the Standard class Cirrus is the most fun for me -
probably because it is mine, and I have the most experience in it. The lower
performance is very frustrating because it is so slow getting anywhere. The
performance of the Kestrel means that you have to fly far to be challenging -
in high winds even the Cirrus can get tiresome trying to go upwind...

Getting low is a consequence of weather and pilot choices. Where I fly there is
usually lots of energy and anything less than 2000 feet AGL is "low" and wasting
time because the thermals tend to get scrappy and disorganised. That said I have
spent my fair share of time grinding away from some low position. Usually as a
consequence of my poor decision making.

Landouts happen to all of them, even the 1:60+ uber bugsmashers. They just tend
to happen a lot further away from home. Which can make retrieves a real
adventure, or unmitigated pain. Consider the crew a little while ago who I
watched scurrying around for a second trailer that could handle an 18m racer
when both of their pilots called below glide 150km away at 17:00... On rural
dirt roads in the part of the world these guys were in that could be a very long
process. Consider that the area these guys were getting low in is pretty
uninhabited. As one French pilot found out in the 2001 worlds, there are places
you can land in a tilled field and have , no radio comms, no cell phone and no
building in sight from the circuit.

How pleasant an outlanding is depends largely on crew and how easy it is to get
your glider home. The one outlanding involving the L13 was a nightmare. The
trailer is open, and the fittings badly designed, and now old and abused. Then
he lands where the rocks prevent getting a trailer in close. Conversely, the
Cirrus is easy to derig and has a good trailer, so it is no major problem most
of the time. Never tried it , but there is an adage that you know who your real
friends are the second time you ask them to retrieve you with a Kestrel 19.

How much fun you have depends on your attitude - not on your equipment.

wrote:
you guys are funny!

For decent performance I think 35/1 would be good enough. Lower
performance is just frustrating when trying XC.

i have no experience flying cross country in anything 35:1 or higher,
but it seems to me like it may be kind of boring, i mean you are way
up in the air all the time, never get close to the ground until youve
made the goal, wheres the excitement??

Makes the "club" less exclusive - I became a cross-county pilot and
fly in contests because I fly a ship I can afford. Modest initial
cost, inexpensive insurance, zero maintenance -

amen and this is why i bought the Cherokee

they did not seem to be having much fun, because they
landed out all the damn time.

now im afraid to move up to high performance soaring, if landing out
isnt fun, of course as long as nothing gets broken, then what is fun?
ive had nearly as much fun on some of my retrieves as some of my
flights.


oh i like the 'claim' idea. reminds me of when i used to go to the
local dirt track races. other racers had the opportunity to claim
parts of the top 5 cars at the end of the race. preset prices for
standard items. kept costs down for everyone and helped even the
playing field.

i think we sould just leave those poor PW-5's alone, i mean usually
RAS doesnt start picking on them until at least later into the fall or
winter. I personally like the idea of a one design class for
contests. I wouldnt even care WHICH design it was but as long as it
was affordable enough for an average pilot to get into. when the
entire field is running the same glider in the same weather over the
same course the only way you win is by being the best pilot and isnt
that what we are trying to figure out anyway?