First Glider, a few more questions

In article
,
tstock wrote:

Hello everyone,

I am still a student, very close to getting my glider license, but
knee surgery has set me back for a month or two. I am in central
Florida. I have been flying solo for about a year now.

So, sitting around immobilized from knee surgery, wishing I could fly,
I decided it would be a good time to sell all of my junk and start
saving for a glider. I'm getting tired of renting and waiting around
for the Blanik. I may have another kid on the way, so I am frantic
sell mode before all of my extra cash is tied up in baby expenses. My
wife is ok with the purchase since I am basically selling off my old
hobbies to buy the glider.

I had originally decided on a 1-26 for a first glider. The price is
right, parts are out there, easy to find, easy to fly, and very easy
to land out in tight places. At the moment I have about $5,000 saved
towards my glider and I see quite a few in this price range. Problem
is, I am 195 pounds in shorts and a T-shirt without chute, and around
215 pounds with chute, handheld radio, water bottle, breakfast, etc.
As far as I can tell a chute would put me over max or very near max
pilot weight in a 1-26 depending on the version. Also, recovering the
1-26 which would likely be required could add a couple of thousand to
the cost... more than once. So a $4500 1-26 could really end up a
$7000 project and mean not flying for most of the season while the
work is done.



Got plenty of time in a 1-34, never really like it.

For my money, the 1-23's, D models and up, are the best gliders
Schweizer ever made. Not the easiest to assemble, but if you are
planning on keeping it tied out, then, there you go.

The 1-23's are a lot like a metal Ka-6 (except they don't handle nearly
as well, but, then, what does?). Good climber and enough L/D to actually
go somewhere.

A couple of more thoughts:

1) Although its a little sensitive in pitch for some folks, the SGS
1-36 is another "old metal bird" option that would be a fine ship.

2) There are several good ships on http://www.wingsandwheels.com/wantads1.htm
(Page 1) that you could purchase with a partner, including the Russia,
the PIK-20 (if you're OK with flap-only landings), LP-15 Nugget
(provided its in good condition), maybe the ASW-15b (if it can handle
your pilot weight)... All of them could probably be negotiated down a
couple of thousand $$, too (depending on condition, trailer, delivery/
pickup, annual inspection status, etc).

Good luck, its a big odyssey! It took me a couple of months to buy my
first ship (a Russia AC-4a) and about 8 months to find and buy my
second one (a DG-300). Take your time, and inspect the ships in
person before you buy if there's ANY way you can do so (remember: a
trip to view the aircraft is way cheaper than the cost of a glider you
end up not liking).

--Noel

On Aug 2, 6:49*pm, tstock wrote:
Hello everyone,

I am still a student, very close to getting my glider license, but
knee surgery has set me back for a month or two. *I am in central
Florida. I have been flying solo for about a year now.

So, sitting around immobilized from knee surgery, wishing I could fly,
I decided it would be a good time to sell all of my junk and start
saving for a glider. *I'm getting tired of renting and waiting around
for the Blanik. *I may have another kid on the way, so I am frantic
sell mode before all of my extra cash is tied up in baby expenses. *My
wife is ok with the purchase since I am basically selling off my old
hobbies to buy the glider.

I had originally decided on a 1-26 for a first glider. *The price is
right, parts are out there, easy to find, easy to fly, and very easy
to land out in tight places. * At the moment I have about $5,000 saved
towards my glider and I see quite a few in this price range. *Problem
is, I am 195 pounds in shorts and a T-shirt without chute, and around
215 pounds with chute, handheld radio, water bottle, breakfast, etc.
As far as I can tell a chute would put me over max or very near max
pilot weight in a 1-26 depending on the version. *Also, recovering the
1-26 which would likely be required could add a couple of thousand to
the cost... more than once. *So a $4500 1-26 could really end up a
$7000 project and mean not flying for most of the season while the
work is done.

My next option is to save another two to three thousand (I am not
finished selling old toys) and hope to find a good deal on a 1-34. *No
recovering required, better performance, no weight issue, could tie it
down through the season, but not an easy plane to find, or to find
parts for. *This is the plane I really would like to have ... but
availability is extremely limited, parts are expensive, and I don't
see them often.

My first owned glider is a Schreder HP-11.

Its a 37:1 ship entirely of metal.

Its very strong and takes a lot of abuse, plus if you just polish it
to a mirror finish you don't even ever have to paint it.

If you do paint it, due to being aluminum you can use any color.

It will take a heavy pilot & chute no problem, I started flying it at
225lbs.

Its a simple ship with few things that could break, and everything is
accessable so annuals are a breeze.

Being experimental you also are allowed to do you own work on it
yourself.

Its also the first Flapped ship I flew apart from the Blanik and all
the naysayeers that tell you its going to be hard to learn
or difficult to land nicely....BS!!!! This glider has 90 degree
flaps and I am able to get into any field and land as short as a 1-26
easily.

Flaps on this HP-11 are wonderful and I prefer them now over spoilers
hands down since they go from 90 degrees to - 5 degrees.

I flew side by side with a 1-34 and a Pilatus B4 and they glided
about even until we got to 65mph after which I dialed in negative flap
and accelerated to 90 mph and watched them drop like rocks at that
speed. It is close to a Std Cirrus in performance.

Its truely a superb low cost, higher performance, most bang for your
buck, fun glider and can be had from $5k - 10k. I paid $6K for mine
including an Open trailer and needed nothing to make it ready for
flight.

Did I mention its very strong with a 10g+ spar, robust construction
and easy to maintain. One of the most expensive costs of any glider,
especially and used one Paint, is entirely optional with the HP-11 and
it looks good without any.

As a matter of fact I used the dull aluminum and the shiny mirror
polished qualities to do a 2 tone Non-Paint scheme. I just masked off
the areas I wanted to keep dull and polished the rest to a mirror
gloss.

Polishing lasts about two years out in the hot California sun 7x24x365
before I have to refresh it back to its mirror lustre with some more
polishing.

The V tail flys exactly like a conventional tailed craft, you don't do
anything different, nor are there any different behaviors in flight in
the HP-11.

Ray


I am in hot humid rainy florida, so a wood glider is not something I
am willing to consider, this rules out gliders like the Ka6.

I am sure there is an old but great glider I am missing .. a 1-23D or
E? * I feel like this is like the 1-26 with slightly better glide
ratio, but same best L/D speed, so performance similar to a 1-26.
This could mean more tows on windy days and more expense in the long
run, and I am not sure about parts availability.

Any advice appreciated. *I realize 5K - 8K USD isn't much but I know
something is out there.

Thanks
Tom

On Aug 4, 8:25*am, jb92563 wrote:

Being experimental you also are allowed to do you own work on it
yourself.

Please remind me what rule allows this. I'm assuming you did not
build the aircraft yourself.

thanks

Andy

On Aug 4, 11:04*am, Andy wrote:
On Aug 4, 8:25*am, jb92563 wrote:

Being experimental you also are allowed to do you own work on it
yourself.

Please remind me what rule allows this. *I'm assuming you did not
build the aircraft yourself.

thanks

Andy

Part 43 does not apply to Experimental aircraft. therefore there are
no rules restricting who can do maintenance on experimental aircraft.

The only thing gained by building your own (besides the self
satisfaction of having done it) is that you can apply for the
repairmans certificate and then do your own condition inspections.
Otherwise you have to hire an A&P to do the condition inspection.

On 8/4/2010 10:12 AM, Tony wrote:
On Aug 4, 11:04 am, wrote:
On Aug 4, 8:25 am, wrote:

Being experimental you also are allowed to do you own work on it
yourself.

Please remind me what rule allows this. I'm assuming you did not
build the aircraft yourself.

thanks

Andy

Part 43 does not apply to Experimental aircraft. therefore there are
no rules restricting who can do maintenance on experimental aircraft.

The only thing gained by building your own (besides the self
satisfaction of having done it) is that you can apply for the
repairmans certificate and then do your own condition inspections.
Otherwise you have to hire an A&P to do the condition inspection.

"What Tony said." Having owned nothing but non-personally-built
experimentally-licensed gliders since 1975 (2 'factory-built' and 1
individually built), I've encountered ignorance related to what the
owner of such ships is/is not allowed to do by USA FAA regs
countless/numerous times over the years. Much worse is encountering
pugnacious ignorance...i.e. those declaiming on unreferenced regs to the
effect I'm going to hell for violating FARs/CFRs. I've encountered that,
too!

Bob W.

P.S. If your mechanic has another view, find another mechanic.

On Aug 4, 9:04*am, Andy wrote:

Please remind me what rule allows this. *I'm assuming you did not
build the aircraft yourself.

It's more a case of the reverse: No rule prohibits it, therefore it is
allowed.

The only special privilege conferred upon the builder of record by the
repairbeing certificate is that of conducting the annual condition
inspection. Unless specifically prohibited in the operating
limitations that accompany the special airworthiness certificate (and
I have never, ever seen such a prohibition), any person, creature, or
being may work on and sign off on maintenance and repair work
performed on experimental, amateur-built aircraft.

However, it's not a complete free-for-all. Whatever maintenance and
repairs are done have to pass muster at the annual condition
inspection. And if you make major modifications or repairs, you have
to notify the FAA in writing or conduct several hours of Phase I
flight testing (and sometimes both, depending on the specifics of your
operating limitations) before continuing the more lenient Phase II
operations.

Thanks, Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

Great info guys, I am paying close attention.

Thanks
Tom

On Aug 4, 7:26*pm, tstock wrote:
Great info guys, I am paying close attention.

Thanks
Tom

Cost of ownership and maintenance are some other considerations.

In CA Riverside county the yearly airplane "USE" tax is 1% of the
purchase price.
The Yearly annual is about $200-400 if everything is in good condition
and no fixes are needed.
Insurance is between $500 plus, up to 3% of purchase price per year.
Trailer License renewal is cheap, and maintenance is low on trailers
typically,
Check you car and glider insurance coverage to make sure you are
covered for your glider and trailer when towing.


Maintenance:

With a certified aircraft you tend to post phone maintenance due to
cost and mechanic availability many times figuring that if you meet
the
letter of the laws you are still OK, but with an experimental you are
free to repair things as they get worn and you will
end up with a better maintained aircraft, and therefore safer in my
opinion.

Some people have an aversion to Experimental Aircraft because there is
a perceived risk, but
in reality it actually makes you much more responsible for the safety
of your own butt and you tend to err on
the side of caution.

Honestly, I prefer experimental now because it allows you the freedom
to make improvements with far less fuss
and cost of ownership is definitely cheaper if you are mechanically
inclined to maintain it yourself.

Case in point is that before an annual, I do a pre annual and fix up
or note anything that needs attention and minimize the need for
an aircraft mechanics time.

Then at the actual Annual I ask questions and point out things to the
inspector that are of concern to me that he may not be aware of.

After the inspectors annual I do a post annual inspection to make sure
everything is back in place and set as it should be.

I had one annual that upon reassembly a rudder cable ended up wrapped
around the elevator tube.

The preflight revealed a "resistance" in the control freedom that I
was not normal. A quick look in the inspection port revealed the
condition and I corrected it in a few minutes.....I could not imagine
how that happened but now do my own thorough post annuals.

You will find that the Inspectors come in flavors varying from one
extreme to the other, one that does the bare minimum, signs your book
and takes your money, (Cheap cost/ high risk)
and those that will accept nothing less than absolute perfection
before signing (And their time is money so you pay double or triple/
lower risk)

You need to find one that matches your comfort and DIY level.

Ray

On Aug 5, 8:29*am, jb92563 wrote:

With a certified aircraft you tend to post phone maintenance due to
cost and mechanic availability many times figuring that if you meet
the
letter of the laws you are still OK, but with an experimental you are
free to repair things as they get worn and you will
end up with a better maintained aircraft, and therefore safer in my
opinion.

Not true in my experience. I have owned one standard airworthiness
glider, one experimental glider, and been in partnership on 2 standard
airworthiness airplanes. The level of maintenance I have done on the
airplanes is far greater than on either glider because they require
much more maintenance.

If you are a competent mechanic, and have a good relationship with the
AI or A&P that will sign off either the maintenance or the next
inspection, there is essentially no difference between the maintenance
work a competent owner can do on standard vs experimental.

So far I have found no advantage to being experimental except perhaps
for better availability of persons qualified to perform the
inspection. The known downsides to experimental are the program
letter and its associated restrictions and the possible loss of
coverage under a life insurance policy. (quite likely to be a factor
for someone with a young family).

Andy