Cirrus vs ASW

Sorry Eric but you are talking b*ll*cks. The Standard
Cirrus may not have quite the same modern safe handling
as a LS4 or a Discus, but any competent pilot should
be able to fly one quite easily and safely. They also
have the advantage of costing a fraction of the amount
expected for these supposedly more desirable types
and are not that far short on performance.

The differences between the earlier Standard Cirrus
and the later Standard Cirrus75 are wing root fillets
to improve the low speed handling, bigger airbrakes
and I believe slight changes to the wing section and
tailplane mounting. The airbrakes on either type can
be greatly improved by fitting the bolt on double paddle
kits, and I would recommend that these should be fitted.


The last couple of versions were fitted with conventional
tailplanes after the vogue for all flying tailplanes
passed, and these handle pretty much like the Discus.

The only issue with all flying-tailplanes is that they
tend to trail along the relative airflow. This means
that if you let go of the stick the glider will have
little stick free stability. If it is not perfectly
trimmed out, or hits disturbed air, it will slowly
enter an ever increasing phugoid which will not damp
itself out. However if you do remember to hold the
stick, this problem disappears and the glider will
be as stable in pitch as any other type, as long as
the cockpit weight limits are observed. How often
and for how long do you normally fly without holding
the stick?

If you could be placed in a Standard Cirrus at 2000
feet and told to get on with flying it, you probably
wouldn't even notice that it had an all flying tailplane.
The only thing you might find out if you experimented
a bit is that the elevator loads do not change with
speed. This probably makes it unsuitable for aerobatics
unless you are very skilled at doing them, although
it is certified as semi-aerobatic. Best to regard it
as a soaring machine, which it does very well. Standard
Cirri usually clean up in Club Class competitions.

All the owners I know love their Standard Cirruses,
not least because of the light and precise handling.

Derek Copeland
----------------------------------
At 23:24 21 March 2006, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Derek Copeland wrote:
By comparison the Standard Cirrus was very easy to
fly, subject to the usual provisos for all-flying
tailplanes.
Don't be put off this lovely glider by all the scare
stories!

When a number of experienced pilots, some of them CFIGs,
and some with
thousands of hours, who have flown a variety of gliders,
issue warnings
about a particular glider, that rises above the level
of 'scare
stories'. For example, you do not hear this controversy
over the LS4.
These warnings should be respected and considered carefully,
especially
if you are a less experienced pilot. The Std. Cirrus
is not an LS4 with
a quirk or two.

For clarification, the Std Cirrus I refer is not the
Cirrus 75, but the
older models called 'Standard Cirrus'. The Cirrus 75
had a number of
changes, such as better airbrakes, and I am not familiar
with it.

--
Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download 'A Guide to Self-launching
Sailplane
Operation'

Derek Copeland wrote:
Sorry Eric but you are talking b*ll*cks.

Please read this part again:"When a number of experienced pilots, some
of them CFIGs, and some with thousands of hours, who have flown a
variety of gliders,issue warnings about a particular glider, that rises
above the level of 'scare stories'."

It's not just me, it's not just an anorak with 20 hours in a 2-33 that
scares himself in his first flight in a Std Cirrus. That would be a
"scare story".

The Standard
Cirrus may not have quite the same modern safe handling
as a LS4 or a Discus, but any competent pilot should
be able to fly one quite easily and safely.

That begs the question: "any competent pilot". Yes, someone that can fly
it safely can fly it safely. My comments were to the less experienced
pilot that might be able to safely fly an LS4 but not the Std Cirrus.

They also
have the advantage of costing a fraction of the amount
expected for these supposedly more desirable types
and are not that far short on performance.

Yes, they are cheaper, and it's not just because they are older or have
less performance. Cheaper may not be a good value for the less
experienced pilot.

snip

The only issue with all flying-tailplanes is that they
tend to trail along the relative airflow. This means
that if you let go of the stick the glider will have
little stick free stability. If it is not perfectly
trimmed out, or hits disturbed air, it will slowly
enter an ever increasing phugoid which will not damp
itself out. However if you do remember to hold the
stick, this problem disappears and the glider will
be as stable in pitch as any other type, as long as
the cockpit weight limits are observed. How often
and for how long do you normally fly without holding
the stick?

Not very often, but my Std Cirrus was the only one I didn't dare let go
of the stick over about 80 mph. Have you missed the discussion of the
positive feedback in turbulence from the unbalanced elevator circuit? My
other gliders didn't have that.


If you could be placed in a Standard Cirrus at 2000
feet and told to get on with flying it, you probably
wouldn't even notice that it had an all flying tailplane.

I sure did in mine.

The only thing you might find out if you experimented
a bit is that the elevator loads do not change with
speed. This probably makes it unsuitable for aerobatics
unless you are very skilled at doing them, although
it is certified as semi-aerobatic. Best to regard it
as a soaring machine, which it does very well. Standard
Cirri usually clean up in Club Class competitions.

All the owners I know love their Standard Cirruses,
not least because of the light and precise handling.

I did not love my Standard Cirrus, but I did like it. It's handling
stunk compared to my ASW 20 C. What a difference! The designers have
learned a lot since the Standard Cirrus was designed almost 40 years ago.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

Hi Eric

I can only say that as a UK qualified instructor with
several hundred hours in the Standard Cirrus, I have
briefed many very nervous pilots for their first flight
in this type. They are mostly only nervous because
of the scare stories put about by people like you.
They have all returned with big beaming smiles, asking
what all the fuss was about!

OK it has very light controls compared with the 'Yank
Tank' Schweizers that your CFIGs tend to fly, but as
long as this is properly briefed for it doesn't seem
to cause a problem. Ideally I would prefer pilots to
have had at least some previous experience in other
types of standard class gliders.

Regards,
Derek Copeland
--------------------------
At 03:30 22 March 2006, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Please read this part again:'When a number of experienced
pilots, some
of them CFIGs, and some with thousands of hours, who
have flown a
variety of gliders,issue warnings about a particular
glider, that rises
above the level of 'scare stories'.'

It's not just me, it's not just an anorak with 20 hours
in a 2-33 that
scares himself in his first flight in a Std Cirrus.
That would be a
'scare story'.

The Standard
Cirrus may not have quite the same modern safe handling
as a LS4 or a Discus, but any competent pilot should
be able to fly one quite easily and safely.

That begs the question: 'any competent pilot'. Yes,
someone that can fly
it safely can fly it safely. My comments were to the
less experienced
pilot that might be able to safely fly an LS4 but not
the Std Cirrus.

They also
have the advantage of costing a fraction of the amount
expected for these supposedly more desirable types
and are not that far short on performance.

Yes, they are cheaper, and it's not just because they
are older or have
less performance. Cheaper may not be a good value for
the less
experienced pilot.

snip

The only issue with all flying-tailplanes is that
they
tend to trail along the relative airflow. This means
that if you let go of the stick the glider will have
little stick free stability. If it is not perfectly
trimmed out, or hits disturbed air, it will slowly
enter an ever increasing phugoid which will not damp
itself out. However if you do remember to hold the
stick, this problem disappears and the glider will
be as stable in pitch as any other type, as long as
the cockpit weight limits are observed. How often
and for how long do you normally fly without holding
the stick?

Not very often, but my Std Cirrus was the only one
I didn't dare let go
of the stick over about 80 mph. Have you missed the
discussion of the
positive feedback in turbulence from the unbalanced
elevator circuit? My
other gliders didn't have that.


If you could be placed in a Standard Cirrus at 2000
feet and told to get on with flying it, you probably
wouldn't even notice that it had an all flying tailplane.

I sure did in mine.

The only thing you might find out if you experimented
a bit is that the elevator loads do not change with
speed. This probably makes it unsuitable for aerobatics
unless you are very skilled at doing them, although
it is certified as semi-aerobatic. Best to regard
it
as a soaring machine, which it does very well. Standard
Cirri usually clean up in Club Class competitions.

All the owners I know love their Standard Cirruses,
not least because of the light and precise handling.

I did not love my Standard Cirrus, but I did like it.
It's handling
stunk compared to my ASW 20 C. What a difference! The
designers have
learned a lot since the Standard Cirrus was designed
almost 40 years ago.

I read Mr. Greenwell's comments with the same respect I usually have
for his comments. I have to disagree with him on this one. Instructors
and some seasoned pilots told me what a man-killer a 1-35 was. With 27
total flight hours, I flew it, and I still wonder just what they were
referring to. I have 128 hours in a 1-35 and now own a PIK-20B...
ooooohhh... those nasty flaps! If I listened to every warning from
every misinformed person that doesn't like the subject glider, for
whatever reason, I would have never taken that first ride in a
Pratt-Reid so many years ago. Just because a guy or lady can be an
instructor doesn't mean he or she is an expert or even a good pilot.
Conversly, just because someone is a good pilot, doesn't mean that he
or she can be a good instructor. Stories about not having the elevator
hooked up and the like are very helpful, and they make us all more
careful pilots. Stories about the supposed bad behavior of a particular
sailplane model only damage our sport. I saw some recent, veiled
references to the 1-35 and it's supposed bad habits in Soaring Magazine
and they didn't print my reply. I think that's sad, especially for
someone that might really enjoy flying one, and for someone that has
one for sale. I have 1 flight of 2 hours in a Standard Cirrus. What a
nice ship it was... but then... I'm not in the habit of flying
hands-off...

Just my $.02 worth.

Jack Womack
Clovis, NM

Jack wrote:
I read Mr. Greenwell's comments with the same respect I usually have
for his comments. I have to disagree with him on this one. Instructors
and some seasoned pilots told me what a man-killer a 1-35 was. With 27
total flight hours, I flew it, and I still wonder just what they were
referring to. I have 128 hours in a 1-35 and now own a PIK-20B...
ooooohhh... those nasty flaps! If I listened to every warning from
every misinformed person that doesn't like the subject glider, for
whatever reason, I would have never taken that first ride in a
Pratt-Reid so many years ago. Just because a guy or lady can be an
instructor doesn't mean he or she is an expert or even a good pilot.
Conversly, just because someone is a good pilot, doesn't mean that he
or she can be a good instructor. Stories about not having the elevator
hooked up and the like are very helpful, and they make us all more
careful pilots. Stories about the supposed bad behavior of a particular
sailplane model only damage our sport. I saw some recent, veiled
references to the 1-35 and it's supposed bad habits in Soaring Magazine
and they didn't print my reply. I think that's sad, especially for
someone that might really enjoy flying one, and for someone that has
one for sale. I have 1 flight of 2 hours in a Standard Cirrus. What a
nice ship it was... but then... I'm not in the habit of flying
hands-off...

Just my $.02 worth.

Jack Womack
Clovis, NM

Forgive me, but it's a long, dank, snowy, week at the end of winter...

IMHO Jack touches upon a fact of soaring life inescapable for all who
fly single seat sailplanes, namely: at some point everyone who does,
must rely upon their individual judgment that it is safe for them to fly
a given single-seat ship.

As obvious and fatuous a statement that may seem to many, it's true
whether or not an instructor agrees with him or her, and it has
implications for every single-seat gliderpilot. We live in a world in
which the routine application of individual judgment helps us survive
(and sometimes not). Attempting to abdicate such reality may (arguably)
lead to a safer life, but in the case of soaring a genuinely poorer one
for most. How many flights would not be made, how many ships not flown,
how many growth experiences delayed or never experienced, all because an
instructor's judgment conflicted with a seeker of knowledge?

Instructors are human, and - in my judgement! - come with human foibles,
biases, skills and judgment. For better or worse - and mostly the
better! - we're stuck with relying upon their judgments for much of our
early training. But there comes a day when if we are to continue to
grow as pilots, we inevitably begin to rely more on our own judgment.
That's just a fact...whether it's good or bad depends on how sound our
own judgment is.

As a pilot who transitioned to flaps-only single-seaters from a 1-26 and
who has never flown any other types since, I read & heard then when I
sought ship-specific knowledge (and continue to read & hear) all sorts
of misinformation in the glider world - not merely about flaps - too
often presented as fact rather than opinion or judgment. We live in an
imperfect world, and I expect that sort of misinformation will be around
lots longer than I, so the circle is complete: it's necessary to apply
one's own judgment to information presented. The better instructors
will help their students understand the need to apply judgment and
develop the skills and confidence to do so, while not blindly or
uncritically passing along misinformation.

Tangentially (but not unrelated, in my view), safety in soaring is
'merely' another side of having fun. Whatever you choose to do, whether
legal or of sound judgment or not, if you have an accident while doing
it, it will be less fun than if you didn't!

Ideas have consequences.

May all your ideas prove personally rewarding, your skills up to the
tasks' demands, and your judgment sound.

Most of all, have fun!!!

Regards,
Bob W.

"Bob Whelan" wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
I read Mr. Greenwell's comments with the same respect I usually have
for his comments. I have to disagree with him on this one. Instructors
and some seasoned pilots told me what a man-killer a 1-35 was. With 27
total flight hours, I flew it, and I still wonder just what they were
referring to. I have 128 hours in a 1-35 and now own a PIK-20B...
ooooohhh... those nasty flaps! If I listened to every warning from
every misinformed person that doesn't like the subject glider, for
whatever reason, I would have never taken that first ride in a
Pratt-Reid so many years ago. Just because a guy or lady can be an
instructor doesn't mean he or she is an expert or even a good pilot.
Conversly, just because someone is a good pilot, doesn't mean that he
or she can be a good instructor. Stories about not having the elevator
hooked up and the like are very helpful, and they make us all more
careful pilots. Stories about the supposed bad behavior of a particular
sailplane model only damage our sport. I saw some recent, veiled
references to the 1-35 and it's supposed bad habits in Soaring Magazine
and they didn't print my reply. I think that's sad, especially for
someone that might really enjoy flying one, and for someone that has
one for sale. I have 1 flight of 2 hours in a Standard Cirrus. What a
nice ship it was... but then... I'm not in the habit of flying
hands-off...

Just my $.02 worth.

Jack Womack
Clovis, NM

Forgive me, but it's a long, dank, snowy, week at the end of winter...

IMHO Jack touches upon a fact of soaring life inescapable for all who fly
single seat sailplanes, namely: at some point everyone who does, must rely
upon their individual judgment that it is safe for them to fly a given
single-seat ship.

As obvious and fatuous a statement that may seem to many, it's true
whether or not an instructor agrees with him or her, and it has
implications for every single-seat gliderpilot. We live in a world in
which the routine application of individual judgment helps us survive (and
sometimes not). Attempting to abdicate such reality may (arguably) lead
to a safer life, but in the case of soaring a genuinely poorer one for
most. How many flights would not be made, how many ships not flown, how
many growth experiences delayed or never experienced, all because an
instructor's judgment conflicted with a seeker of knowledge?

Instructors are human, and - in my judgement! - come with human foibles,
biases, skills and judgment. For better or worse - and mostly the
better! - we're stuck with relying upon their judgments for much of our
early training. But there comes a day when if we are to continue to grow
as pilots, we inevitably begin to rely more on our own judgment. That's
just a fact...whether it's good or bad depends on how sound our own
judgment is.

As a pilot who transitioned to flaps-only single-seaters from a 1-26 and
who has never flown any other types since, I read & heard then when I
sought ship-specific knowledge (and continue to read & hear) all sorts of
misinformation in the glider world - not merely about flaps - too often
presented as fact rather than opinion or judgment. We live in an
imperfect world, and I expect that sort of misinformation will be around
lots longer than I, so the circle is complete: it's necessary to apply
one's own judgment to information presented. The better instructors will
help their students understand the need to apply judgment and develop the
skills and confidence to do so, while not blindly or uncritically passing
along misinformation.

Tangentially (but not unrelated, in my view), safety in soaring is
'merely' another side of having fun. Whatever you choose to do, whether
legal or of sound judgment or not, if you have an accident while doing it,
it will be less fun than if you didn't!

Ideas have consequences.

May all your ideas prove personally rewarding, your skills up to the
tasks' demands, and your judgment sound.

Most of all, have fun!!!

Regards,
Bob W.

Who says there isn't wisdom on RAS. Two great opinions in a row.
Congratulations Bob and Jack.

There are few bad gliders but there are many bad pilots, unfortunately.

Bill Daniels

Jack wrote:
I read Mr. Greenwell's comments with the same respect I usually have
for his comments. I have to disagree with him on this one. Instructors
and some seasoned pilots told me what a man-killer a 1-35 was.

Have you actually owned (like Eric), or at least flown, a Standard
Cirrus? The logic underlying your disagreement here escapes me (unless,
of course, you actually have a few hundred hours in a Standard Cirrus).
The reality is that there are people who make pronouncements based on
what they hear, and others who make them based on their own experiences.
Ignoring the latter, because of the former, is just plain stupid...

Marc

Marc Ramsey wrote:
Jack wrote:

I read Mr. Greenwell's comments with the same respect I usually have
for his comments. I have to disagree with him on this one. Instructors
and some seasoned pilots told me what a man-killer a 1-35 was.


Have you actually owned (like Eric), or at least flown, a Standard
Cirrus? The logic underlying your disagreement here escapes me (unless,
of course, you actually have a few hundred hours in a Standard Cirrus).
The reality is that there are people who make pronouncements based on
what they hear, and others who make them based on their own experiences.
Ignoring the latter, because of the former, is just plain stupid...

Marc


Hi Marc

As a DG Driver may we assume you do not have "hundreds of hours in ASW20s and
Std Cirrus"? If so I assume you are one of those making pronouncements based on
hearsay?

Both the preceding posts contain wisdom. My first flight in a single seater of
any sort was in my Std Cirrus. Though the CFI and other instructors allowed me
to take the flight the responsibility for taking it was mine. Same with any
person making a first flight on type in a single seater. The famous inscription
at the Temple of Apollo at the entrance to the oracle of Delphi says - "Know
thyself" As Bob said, you are responsible for your own safety. Objective self
assessment is your only rational option.

A responsible pilot researches the aircraft he plans to fly, and prepares. But
if the vast number of vociferous critics out there are right there is not a
single glider out there that is not fatally flawed in some respect. Hell even
the LS4 gets criticism for its collapsing undercarriage. So you have to try to
be objective and filter the hyperbole and plain bull.

The statistics confirm that it is very seldom the glider at fault when things go
horribly wrong. Again from bitter personal experience, that white stripe down
the runway from a PIO on landing with the Cirrus cost about $100/metre. I got it
wrong, and the Cirrus got away from me - the wheel snatched when I braked, I
overcorrected - tip, bounce and bang. My fault - not the glider, blaming the
tool is the sign of a poor workman... It would be easier on the old ego to tell
tales of wild efforts to control an unforgiving etc. etc. airplane - Conversely
if you accept responsibility and learn from the experience you are better for it.

Best would be to avoid getting it wrong in the first place. Again, you have to
know what your capabilities are, and how they match the characteristics of the
glider.

I find it interesting to see the number of Std Cirruses flying decades after
production ceased - it has to have something going for it. Same with other
types. Any number of detractors, but the types popularity indicates otherwise.
--
Bruce Greeff
Std Cirrus #57
I'm no-T at the address above.

Bruce wrote:
As a DG Driver may we assume you do not have "hundreds of hours in
ASW20s and Std Cirrus"? If so I assume you are one of those making
pronouncements based on hearsay?

Actually, I have about 200 hours in various ASW-20 models, including an
ASW-20BL which I owned for a couple of years. You'll note I explicitly
indicated that I could not comment on the characteristics of the
Standard Cirrus, as I've never even sat in one and made glider noises.
The one thing I did say was with respect to my general dislike of
gliders with manual elevator hookups. We had recent accident here in
the US that indicates one can indeed take off (but not land) with the
elevator disconnected in a Standard Cirrus.

For your future reference if I say anything about the K-21, Grob 103,
ASW-20, Ventus B, Duo, LAK-17A, and yes, DG-101, 300, and 303, it is
based on anything from 50 to 300 hours of experience. I don't think you
can point to too many of my posts where I talk about about gliders I've
never flown. I just bought a DG-600 (a glider with a bad reputation,
BTW), so expect further pronouncements.

Both the preceding posts contain wisdom. My first flight in a single
seater of any sort was in my Std Cirrus. Though the CFI and other
instructors allowed me to take the flight the responsibility for taking
it was mine. Same with any person making a first flight on type in a
single seater. The famous inscription at the Temple of Apollo at the
entrance to the oracle of Delphi says - "Know thyself" As Bob said, you
are responsible for your own safety. Objective self assessment is your
only rational option.

Absolutely. My argument is with the notion that because one has had
good experiences with a particular glider, anyone who makes a few
negative comments must therefore be talking out of their arse, even if
they actually have as much or more experience in type. There is a lot
of personal preference at work here. ALL gliders have positives and
negatives. If someone asks, they need to hear both sides.

Marc

Marc,

You and I said about the same thing in different ways. However, I don't
agree that persons speaking from their experience will always impart
wisdom. I posted the truth, that I have 1 flight of 2 hours in a
Standard Cirrus. That has nothing to do with the meat of the matter. I
don't personally care for Jantars, but someone looking at one to buy it
has to figure out for himself/herself whether or not that ship is what
they want, and can handle. How does one go about that? I would talk to
several folks that have them, currently. If they all describe the same
thing that's likely to kill you, then you'd be foolhardy to buy it.
When I first flew the 1-35 I mentioned, all the nay-sayers were porch
sitters that hadn't flown it. How did they know whether it had bad
habits? The person that told me it's "just another airplane with it's
own traits" did me a favor. I was glad in a way that almost no one else
flew it, because it was a club ship that I could keep all afternoon. I
had a ball.

So, because you missed the point of my rant, here it is: Just because
you don't like something doesn't make it bad, or wrong for me. Just
because something's dangerous for you doesn't make it dangerous for me.
Just because something is beyond your skill level, doesn't make it
beyond mine. Yes, designs have improved, but that doesn't make the
older ones inherantly dangerous. Are there dangerous gliders out there?
Yes, absolutely, and especially in the wrong hands, and even more
especially with the wrong advice. The former owner of my PIK was told
to begin his first takeoff with +45 degrees of flap... what a surprise
he had! There are certainly gliders out there that I wouldn't fly,
because they are beyond my skill level. I know which ones they are. I'm
not bashing them here nor anywhere else.

I may be crazy, bit I'm not stupid. Stupid may be listening to someone
telling you of his experiences, while not telling you the whole story.
I read an account of a guy in a 1-35 that had an accident at initial
rollout. What I got from it was that he had no business in that ship.
Unfortunately, the writeup villified that airplane. That's just one
example of not getting the whole story. Eric was forthcoming with his
experiences, and is a well-intentioned gentleman from everything I have
read on RAS. I just don't think he's a good judge of whether or not the
original poster would be fine with a Cirrus or not. Only that person
can figure that out. And, whether or not I've owned a Standard Cirrus
has naught to do with that argument.

Jack Womack