Flapped Glider Recommendations...

On Jan 8, 8:15 pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
OK, how's this for a switcheroo (hijacking my own thread!) - A couple
of people here stated that they thought I wouldn't see much of a
performance difference by going to a flapped ship in weak conditions.
A couple of local pilots with decades of experience have now also said
that. There's still a mental appeal to me in having a "complex"
glider - but if it'll get me a newer or nicer aircraft, I'm open to
the idea of a Standard-Class ship instead.

I've had a private email from someone suggesting an SZD-55 as a good
option (though I don't know if they'd be within my $30k budget limit).

Any other thoughts on what I could get in the Standard class for
around $25k - $30k? Priorities are still 38:1 minimum L/D, good weak-
weather performance (low sink-rate and/or great climb rate),
maneuverable/responsive in the air, and relatively easy to rig.

Honestly I haven't looked all that much... I'm not interested in old
beasts like the LS-1s or G102s or Standard Cirruses. A Libelle H-201,
eh (would probably go with a 301 at that point). How's the Pegasus in
light conditions? Any other weak-weather performers that folks would
recommend in the Standard Class?

Thanks a bunch for all the thoughts and advice!

--Noel

Hi Noel,

I live in Minnesota, not really known for its strong conditions. I
considered many of the sailplanes you did for my first ship and flew
to both coasts to look at a few of them. For example, I looked at a
Mosquito and an LS-1f. I ended up buying a Jantar Standard 2 simply
because it was by far in the best shape of the lot.

At 6 foot and 200 pounds you will fit fine in it. It is easy to rig
and the connections are easy to manipulate and verify. Airbrakes and
water hook up automatically. There is a single pin to align with a
rigging tool to pull the wings in. Wings are on the heavier side, but
fit ladies can manage the wingtips no problem. I typically rig faster
than others.

Like you, I worried a lot about weak-weather performance, especially
after I read the numbers in the sailplane directory. It turned out to
be a complete non-issue. Perhaps because the numbers are wrong! They
list a sink rate of 0.77 m/s or 151 ft/min at 52 kts. However this
sink rate is for the fully-ballasted condition with 150 liters of
water (10 pounds/ft**2 loading) The actual dry figures from the POH
are 0.60 m/s or 118 ft/min at 41 kts and 6.2 pounds/ft**2 loading.

Real world experience? I did my 50k (100k+ actually) on a day when a
well-piloted Ka-6E and another higher performing flapped ship landed
out. So it can't be that bad 'cause I am not that good!

Regarding glide, during my five hour, I flew for a long time with a
Mosquito. At best glide it was pretty even with the edge going to the
Mosquito.

It is tough as nails and parts are available too. Most are poly-
urethaned.

Anyway, hope this helps in your search. I'd go for the nicest
condition ship I could find.

/Adam

Thanks Adam, but I'm not interested in a medium-performance metal
ship. The Jantar Standard 2 is a fine first ship; but its not enough
of a performance jump from my Russia to be an appealing choice.

I believe that my budget affords ships that are newer and have better
performance - whether they're standard-class or flapped. And I am
more interested in those options.

Appreciate it, though!

--Noel

Jantars aren't made out of metal.

"noel.wade" wrote in message
...
Thanks Adam, but I'm not interested in a medium-performance metal
ship. The Jantar Standard 2 is a fine first ship; but its not enough
of a performance jump from my Russia to be an appealing choice.

I believe that my budget affords ships that are newer and have better
performance - whether they're standard-class or flapped. And I am
more interested in those options.

Appreciate it, though!

--Noel

"Old Beasts?"

My LS1-d farts in your general direction!

Don't think an LS1 can keep up? Check out Sam Giltner's successes in
the past couple of years in Sports Class races. He flies an LS1-f.
Immaculately prepared, true. Superb pilot, very true. LS1 old?
Yes. Beastly? No.

By the way, the 301 Libelles are older than the LS1's.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
LS1-d

On Jan 9, 6:43*am, rlovinggood wrote:
"Old Beasts?"

My LS1-d farts in your general direction!

Don't think an LS1 can keep up? *Check out Sam Giltner's successes in
the past couple of years in Sports Class races. *He flies an LS1-f.
Immaculately prepared, true. *Superb pilot, very true. *LS1 old?
Yes. *Beastly? *No.

By the way, the 301 Libelles are older than the LS1's.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
LS1-d

LOL Ray! Too funny!


Noel,

I have an LS1f. Don't discount this particular ship. It's a joy to
fly, very easy to rig, and certainly fits your criteria. It's very
similar to the LS4 in both looks and handling, but with a little less
L/D at 38:1. Besides the one on wings and wheels, I know of two others
that are available. Let me know if you want details.

Dave

noel.wade wrote:

Any other thoughts on what I could get in the Standard class for
around $25k - $30k? Priorities are still 38:1 minimum L/D, good weak-
weather performance (low sink-rate and/or great climb rate),
maneuverable/responsive in the air, and relatively easy to rig.

Honestly I haven't looked all that much... I'm not interested in old
beasts like the LS-1s or G102s or Standard Cirruses. A Libelle H-201,
eh (would probably go with a 301 at that point). How's the Pegasus in
light conditions? Any other weak-weather performers that folks would
recommend in the Standard Class?

I don't know how the price compares, but I spent two happy years flying
my club's Pegase 90 in a lot of different conditions. The main
difference between a 101D and a 90 is that the 90 is a later model and
has fully automatic control hook-ups. I like the Pegase a lot and would
probably have bought one apart from there being none available when I
was in the market. At the time my wish list included Pegase, ASW-19,
ASW-20 and Libelle 201. Performance wise, the Pegase sits between the 19
and the 20. Its essentially a slightly modified ASW-20 fuselage with
completely new wings. If you look under the wing at the right angle you
can just see where the 20's cockpit air inlets have been blocked off:
the Pegase uses a simpler nose inlet.

Has the 3000 hour issue in the US been cleared yet?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Jan 9, 2:42*am, "noel.wade" wrote:
Thanks Adam, but I'm not interested in a medium-performance metal
ship. *The Jantar Standard 2 is a fine first ship; but its not enough
of a performance jump from my Russia to be an appealing choice.

I believe that my budget affords ships that are newer and have better
performance - whether they're standard-class or flapped. *And I am
more interested in those options.

Appreciate it, though!

--Noel

Hi Noel,

"Medium-performance metal"? Ouch!

OK, so you know little about the Jantars. They were built from 1973
until the mid-90s. My "Standard 2" was made in 1981.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_Bie...antar_Standard

I only mention it as a viable option to the planes you listed (first
and second generation 'glass). Of the planes I went to see, I would
have bought the either Mini-Nimbus or the LS-1f from a price/
performance point of view. Condition left a lot to be desired
howver...

Taking your priority list:
"Priorities are still 38:1 minimum L/D, good weak-
weather performance (low sink-rate and/or great climb rate),
maneuverable/responsive in the air, and relatively easy to rig."

How does a Jantar rate (IMO)?
It does 38:1, it rigs easily, it is responsive, it is fair in the
climb department.

In addition, it has a few desirable features like a very strong
construction (154kt VNE) and a tall landing gear. No wood/balsa cores
to rot, honest behavior in the air, very powerful top/bottom spoliers,
and a good safety record.

On the negative, I find the ailerons heavier than other single-seaters
(could be my seals) and not everyone like the seating arrangement. I
find it comfortable as a six footer.

The "2" version comes in far less than your budget. However the
Standard 3 version puts you into $25k and give you a proper canopy.

OK, I'll stop with the sales pitch. I totally understand if you want
to make a bigger jump. Don't we all?
/Adam

Wow, who knew how much controversy I could start with just a couple of
words?? ;-)

On the Jantars: I admit I mis-spoke about them being metal - don't
know why I was thinking that was the case. A local CFIG tried to sell
me his Jantar Standard 2 when I went looking for my first ship. I
checked it out; but decided the aircraft wasn't for me. I haven't
looked at the Standard 3... BTW, according to Johnson the JS2 L/D
was 36:1, not 38:1. So no, it doesn't meet my "38:1" criteria.

As far as LS-1s go: A buddy of mine flies an LS-1 and does REALLY
well with it. However, it seems that all of the LS-1s I've seen have
reached the point where their gelcoat is going bad / wearing out...
This buddy of mine is actually refinishing the LS-1 this winter; its
going to look great when he's done, but it sounds like an insane
amount of work!

The LS-1 is another one of those situations where I say "I can afford
a newer/better ship with my budget - so why buy something older?" For
example: There's a pretty nice LS-3 on Wings&Wheels for $24k. OTHER
than price, why would I go with an LS-1 instead of an LS-3? Think the
"heavy" LS-3 wings are that big of a deal?

There have been steady advances in airfoils, ergonomics, safety, and
materials-usage over the years. I am hoping to leverage some of that
with my budget - not get the cheapest glider I can that meets a bare
minimum of my criteria.

Anyone have further thoughts (or a critique of my position)?

Thanks, take care,

--Noel
P.S. Martin - AFAIK, the 3000-hour issue on the Pegasus is still a
problem in the USA. :-(

On Jan 9, 9:58*am, "noel.wade" wrote:
Wow, who knew how much controversy I could start with just a couple of
words?? ;-)

On the Jantars: *I admit I mis-spoke about them being metal - don't
know why I was thinking that was the case. *A local CFIG tried to sell
me his Jantar Standard 2 when I went looking for my first ship. *I
checked it out; but decided the aircraft wasn't for me. *I haven't
looked at the Standard 3... *BTW, according to Johnson the JS2 L/D
was *36:1, not 38:1. *So no, it doesn't meet my "38:1" criteria.

As far as LS-1s go: *A buddy of mine flies an LS-1 and does REALLY
well with it. *However, it seems that all of the LS-1s I've seen have
reached the point where their gelcoat is going bad / wearing out...
This buddy of mine is actually refinishing the LS-1 this winter; its
going to look great when he's done, but it sounds like an insane
amount of work!

The LS-1 is another one of those situations where I say "I can afford
a newer/better ship with my budget - so why buy something older?" *For
example: *There's a pretty nice LS-3 on Wings&Wheels for $24k. *OTHER
than price, why would I go with an LS-1 instead of an LS-3? *Think the
"heavy" LS-3 wings are that big of a deal?

There have been steady advances in airfoils, ergonomics, safety, and
materials-usage over the years. *I am hoping to leverage some of that
with my budget - not get the cheapest glider I can that meets a bare
minimum of my criteria.

Anyone have further thoughts (or a critique of my position)?

Thanks, take care,

--Noel
P.S. *Martin - AFAIK, the 3000-hour issue on the Pegasus is still a
problem in the USA. :-(

Noel,

What LS1 model are you talking about? Don't know if you realize that
the "f" is quite different from the earlier variants. As I said it's
very very similar to the LS4 (fuselage and empenage almost identical),
although does have the same airfoil as the earlier LS1's. However the
wing incidence has been adjusted to allow better performance at higher
speeds and it's structurally stronger allowing a higher max gross
weight to carry more water if desired. I nice LS1f that's been
refinished in recent years would be a very nice ship for the money.
Should cost you less than $20k. An LS4 these days will easily cost you
$30k+ "IF" you can find one. Of course the LS1f's aren't easy to find
either.


Dave

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 07:58:57 -0800 (PST), "noel.wade"
wrote:


BTW, according to Johnson the JS2 L/D
was 36:1, not 38:1. So no, it doesn't meet my "38:1" criteria.

Hi Noel,

an advice: Don't stick too close to numbers. Performance numbers of
glider differ vastly depending on who measured them (Johnson or the
German Idaflieg), and, more important:
Sheer performance numbers are only one part of the truth.
In reality you are not going to notice if your ship has two points
better L/D or a slightly better sink rate.



Bye
Andreas