![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Nov 1, 6:56 am, John Smith wrote:
Karl Striedieck wrote: Is the 20 meter DG-1000 authorized for acro? With 20m it's authorized for "basic" acro, which means Loops, Turns and erect Spins. No rolls and no negative g. With 18m it's authorized for full aerobatics. If it is I'm curious about the reason. Both ships were designed to meet JAR standards regarding strength and dive brake performance. Because the dive brakes are *not* of equal strenght. I've never compared side by side, but the DG1000 definitely allows for a much more sloppy approach. (Not that I would advocate sloppy flying!) I've read that you compared them and think both are the same, I definitely don't share your opinion. Karl's side by side measurement is fascinating, but not what I would expect. I've got about 40-50 hours each in DG-1000S and Duo Discus and the DG-1000S seems much more tolerant to sloppy handling on approach, seems to wash off energy much more effectively with spoilers than the Duo Discus and have less run out in ground effect. So why is this, more effective drag (not lift spoiling) vs. speed in the DG-1000S? I can't explain it but I definitely believe it is true. Couple this with a more forgiving undercarriage and landings in the DG-1000S seem much more tolerant of sloppiness than the Duo. This is not a slam against the Duo, I like both gliders. I'll give the Duo the benefit in handling, lighter aileron forces and very nice slow speed behavior as it floats around a thermal (you can hear that inner wing rumble and she just floats around). BTW out of date now with the Duo-X but Karl did write up a comparison of the Duo and DG-1000S in the June 2003 SSA Soaring magazine. Since this topic is already all over the place - one thing I see in the Duo-X collateral is Schemp Hirth still promote the light tail weight and therefore easier ground handling (I'm sure aimed at the DG-1000S). I wish they'd actually make the tail a little heavier to help reduce those little tail raising surprises under brake - not that I've ever done this but I've seen others do it :-) I suspect that is a major change in moving the U/C more forward, but with adding the U/C springs, and later stretched cockpit this is one thing I'd hoped they would have tweaked as well. Anybody with Duo-X experience - is the tail at least a little heavier? Regards Darryl |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fun with trailling edge dive brakes | Scott Elhardt | Soaring | 16 | May 9th 14 02:52 AM |
Polar with spoilers extended? | Tim Taylor | Soaring | 85 | October 29th 07 09:16 AM |
High on Final, Summary; was Polar with spoilers extended? | Steve Leonard | Soaring | 4 | October 27th 07 07:22 AM |
Extended GPX Schema | Paul Tomblin | Products | 0 | September 25th 04 02:44 AM |
L-13 Spoilers | Scott | Soaring | 2 | August 27th 03 06:08 AM |