Forgiving sailplanes

On Jul 20, 10:09*pm, Bruce wrote:
On 2010/07/20 10:44 PM, bildan wrote:



On Jul 20, 1:59 pm, Eric *wrote:
On 7/20/2010 12:24 PM, bildan wrote:

On Jul 20, 8:35 am, EvValentin808
* *wrote:

Can anyone give me a list of forgiving sailplanes out there. I know some
like the Schweizers, *Rudolf Kaiser's designs(Schleicher K-series) and
the Discus... Any other to list?

--
EvValentin808

No doubt this thread will have a long run.

My view is that all gliders are 'forgiving' - if flown by a qualified
pilot. *OTOH, unqualified pilots can wreck any glider no matter how
'forgiving'.

In any event, 'forgiving' handling qualities has little to do with the
safety of the pilot. *Any glider, no matter how 'forgiving' can be
flown into a very unforgiving Earth. *They will still collide with
mountains and other gliders. *Trees and other obstacles can still
wreck them. *The number of accidents with poor handling qualities as
the primary cause is virtually non-existent.

I don't agree at all. A qualified pilot can compensate for "unforgiving"
qualities, but that doesn't make the glider "forgiving". Some gliders
have very poor glide path control, some spin easily, with little
warning, and don't recover quickly. Put the CG too far aft, and most
gliders are likely not "forgiving".

Right, and the only thing that makes these gliders 'forgiving' is
pilot skill. *My experience is the difference between the worst and
best handling glider is fairly small. *After all, they have to go
through the same certification process. *(Experimental glider
excluded, of course.)

Even a qualified pilot can be distracted, or tired, or hypoxic, or
dehydrated, and the outcome is likely to be much better in a "forgiving"
glider than one that isn't.

You really think mere benign handling qualities will save this guy?
He's likely to fly his 'forgiving' glider into a tree.

What's REALLY unforgiving is nature. *Make enough mistakes and 'ol
Mother Nature will kill or maim you. *She's merciless. * Her goal is
just cleaning the gene pool.

I don't think the "Mother Nature" is the main factor in most glider
accidents. Look at how many happen near the airport and in good weather.

Hi Derek

You are correct - I am amplifying the difference. As I said I actually
prefer the handling on the Cirrus. BUT - I learned, on the Cirrus, to
fly with a very light touch on the stick. There is virtually no force
feedback on pitch. Especially in some of the big rough thermals we get
here, you tend to get a wing dropping quite easily.

As Bob commented - it is a pilot skill thing. I can, and do, fly the
Cirrus quite close to the limit and get the best climb rates etc. When I
do that I am aware that the departure from controlled flight is quite
rapid - and if I am not paying attention I will have a wing drop.
Recovery is instant - just unload the wing. Smoothly approached there is
a distinct turbulent warning - especially as the wake hits the elevator.

So - the Cirrus is a precise aircraft to fly, but can be more work than
some others. e.g. you can't take your hand off the stick for more than a
second or so (Phugoid is divergent and the elevator is effectively
mounted on a gimbal), and will reliably reward ham fisted insensitive
control inputs with a spin. The point I was trying to make is that some
aircraft require more attention. Which can contribute to impaired
capability - which is less safe.

For what it is worth.

I have serial Std Cirrus number 57. Which is a little different - it was
imported by the Schempp agent specifically for the purpose of flying
records. So - It has lower washout on the tips, (standard on early models)
- the components (wings/fuselage etc) were selected at the factory for
being heavy.
- It has a tail wheel and is set up with the CG quite far aft. I have to
accept that as the heavy fuselage limits the amount of weight I can put
in the nose without exceeding max non-lifting weight with me in it.
- Said heroic early owners damaged both wingtips, and broke the fuselage
(twice) and elevator - so lots of repairs at various stages. Maybe she
is not 100% straight.
- Currently in the workshop getting the second paddles added to the
airbrakes and winglets to improve the low speed behaviour, and a
cosmetic make over to make her pretty again.

Bruce

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Jul 21, 9:56*am, Bruce wrote:
Hi Derek

You are correct - I am amplifying the difference. As I said I actually
prefer the handling on the Cirrus. BUT - I learned, on the Cirrus, to
fly with a very light touch on the stick. There is virtually no force
feedback on pitch. Especially in some of the big rough thermals we get
here, you tend to get a wing dropping quite easily.

As Bob commented - it is a pilot skill thing. I can, and do, fly the
Cirrus quite close to the limit and get the best climb rates etc. When I
do that I am aware that the departure from controlled flight is quite
rapid - and if I am not paying attention I will have a wing drop.
Recovery is instant - just unload the wing. Smoothly approached there is
a distinct turbulent warning - especially as the wake hits the elevator.

So - the Cirrus is a precise aircraft to fly, but can be more work than
some others. e.g. you can't take your hand off the stick for more than a
second or so (Phugoid is divergent and the elevator is effectively
mounted on a gimbal), and will reliably reward ham fisted insensitive
control inputs with a spin. The point I was trying to make is that some
aircraft require more attention. Which can contribute to impaired
capability - which is less safe.


I remember that my briefing for my first flight in a Std Cirrus
included the words "If it feels as though the controls are not
connected up, don't worry about it". It does indeed have very light
stick forces, but this makes it less tiring to fly and you only have
to think a turn and it will do it. I can fly my Cirrus all day, but I
get tired after flying something with heavier controls, especially big
two-seaters, after about 3 or 4 hours.

Derek C

On 2010/07/21 12:57 PM, Derek C wrote:
On Jul 21, 9:56 am, wrote:
Hi Derek

You are correct - I am amplifying the difference. As I said I actually
prefer the handling on the Cirrus. BUT - I learned, on the Cirrus, to
fly with a very light touch on the stick. There is virtually no force
feedback on pitch. Especially in some of the big rough thermals we get
here, you tend to get a wing dropping quite easily.

As Bob commented - it is a pilot skill thing. I can, and do, fly the
Cirrus quite close to the limit and get the best climb rates etc. When I
do that I am aware that the departure from controlled flight is quite
rapid - and if I am not paying attention I will have a wing drop.
Recovery is instant - just unload the wing. Smoothly approached there is
a distinct turbulent warning - especially as the wake hits the elevator.

So - the Cirrus is a precise aircraft to fly, but can be more work than
some others. e.g. you can't take your hand off the stick for more than a
second or so (Phugoid is divergent and the elevator is effectively
mounted on a gimbal), and will reliably reward ham fisted insensitive
control inputs with a spin. The point I was trying to make is that some
aircraft require more attention. Which can contribute to impaired
capability - which is less safe.


I remember that my briefing for my first flight in a Std Cirrus
included the words "If it feels as though the controls are not
connected up, don't worry about it". It does indeed have very light
stick forces, but this makes it less tiring to fly and you only have
to think a turn and it will do it. I can fly my Cirrus all day, but I
get tired after flying something with heavier controls, especially big
two-seaters, after about 3 or 4 hours.

Derek C

Indeed - I hate the feeling of holding something embedded in a pot of
porridge.
I have had the moment half way up the winch launch of feeling there are
no controls connected. It happens after a day spent wrestling ancient
two seaters around. Then you get in the Cirrus and everything is so light.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Jul 20, 10:35*am, EvValentin808
wrote:
Can anyone give me a list of forgiving sailplanes out there. I know some
like the Schweizers, *Rudolf Kaiser's designs(Schleicher K-series) and
the Discus... Any other to list?

--
EvValentin808

Ignore all the nastiness below, and get yourself a late-model LS-4.
Earlier models almost as nice but the automatic
hookups are more forgiving.
You'll love it !
Best Regards, Dave

I agree with Dave.
Get an LS4.
It has such a solid feeling when flying and is very very stable.
The airbrake/gear control interlock is a nice feature also.
Guy

I'll chime in for the ASW-19. I'd tried to get a LS-4, but couldn't
find one at the time. The ASW-19 was described to me by a multi-time
US champion as 98% of the LS-4 at 75% of the price. The only potential
downside is the CG hook for aerotowing, but truthfully, I never had a
problem with it.

If you can't find a ASW-19 or a LS-4, and you can swing the extra
cash, there are a number of LS-8s for sale on Wings & Wheels right
now. I can attest that they are nice, easy to fly aircraft, too, plus
they have incredible performance for when you start flying contests.

-John