First glider Nimbus 2 ?

On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 11:34:50 PM UTC-8, Surge wrote:
I like Dan's comments regarding having the right attitude and aptitude and flying conservatively.
If money is not an issue then an older 15m ship is probably going to be a better idea if you plan to fly aggressively. I don't compete so flying conservative 3 to 5 hours flights (300 to 500km) on nice days suites me just fine. If I wanted to fly aggressively I would not have bought the Nimbus 2.

I chose the Nimbus 2 for various reasons:
1. There was nothing available with a 40+:1 L/D within my budget. ASW20's were selling for 3 to 4 times the price and club single seaters were not always available and often had a waiting queue which meant long cross country flights on nice days were not possible.
2. I wanted to have 100% ownership in a glider which I know no one else has broken, mis-rigged, etc. without my knowledge. I saw club gliders being abused or landed hard and then hangared for the next person to fly so safety became a motivating factor.
3. The used glider market in my area is very small with limited demand so purchasing something like an Astir G102 and then being unable to sell it later to upgrade to a higher performance glider wasn't an option.
4. I have long legs and the Nimbus 2 is the only glider I've flown which has a long cockpit I fit in comfortably. Getting cramps in my ankle and calf muscles and having an aching lower back after an hour of flying single Astirs was no longer enjoyable. My long legs ruled out older, affordable 15m ships like Astirs, ASW15, ASW19.
5. The area I fly in has large fields (500m to 1500m long) and often with shorter grass crops so outlandings are less of a risk. That allowed me to remove the tail chute to avoid the "will it deploy when I need it" and "accidental deployment" scenarios. I have the single panel Schempp-Hirth airbrakes so approach control is adequate but not great. If you need to outland in fields less than 500m with obstacles on approach then I would not recommend the Nimbus 2. Fiddling with a tail chute which doesn't want to deploy while trying to outland in a small field is not the sort of risk I want to take.

Each individual has different circumstances, needs and abilities. The Nimbus 2 is not what I would regard as a "sweet ship" so take the advice about the ground handling and less ideal properties seriously before making a decision. One of the other pilots in the club bought a Nimbus 2M and his experience has not been great at all. Having the CofG near the aft limits probably played a large part in that experience.
Have you actually flown a Nimbus 2? I suggest you organise a test flight before making the purchase. Maybe you can organise a dual in something with an all flying elevator like a Janus first.

I am (or was) 6' 2" and fit into an ASW19 just fine with the seat back removed.

Tom

Dne stÅ™eda 6. ledna 2021Â*vÂ*22:38:36 UTC+1 uživatel napsal:
środa, 6 stycznia 2021 o 08:39:02 UTC+1 Andreas Maurer napisał(a):
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 23:34:48 -0800 (PST), Surge
wrote:
Have you actually flown a Nimbus 2? I suggest you organise a test flight before making the purchase. Maybe you can organise a dual in something with an all flying elevator like a Janus first.
I would never lend my Numbus 2 to a pilot with so few hours. Never.
ok, so I understand that you consider a flight in Nimbus executed by a 70 hours pilot would be very dangerous to a both glider and pilot. But what exactly are the factors of that danger? is it just "no, because no" type of argumentation or do you mean any particular elements of flying technique / tactics which are neccessary to execute a short, safe flight in good conditions within a gliding range of the airfield, and which a-70-hour pilot cannot possibly have?

Hi,
Im in similar position as you (150H PIC in GLD and TMG) and Im starting scanning market for first glider too. Im not flying Nimbus2 so Im not able to camment in flight characteristics, but Nimbus 2b was bought by another club-member (after about 2- 3years flying XC in low performance gliders) so there are some notes only from ground. Long wings are quite low so you have to watch it, which is challenging when flying in cross-winds and ground runs at takeoff and landings are looong, because this thing is simply heavy. Some folks above sad it can be landed short but you have to be on exactly right speed, OK for airport with stable or no wind and free space before touchdown zone, in not known place and some croswind I woud like to keep some more speed probably, ant then ground run can be quite long. So this combination is for safe outlanding for me big NO, and from my experince in air (sinks can be prety strong) when Im not sure than I can land plane in field I don't leave airport from my sight, so there is no need to have big L/D because you can fly in same are with L13. About flaps I dont right to say nothing because I dont fly plane with them, but I fly TMG and I know that every one lever or button you have to push, need your attention especially when you are learning new plane. And when things are not optimal there is not a small chance you forget something. This is up to you if you thing that in glider that you flying you are enough relaxed so you are able to keep up with more workload.

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 13:38:34 -0800 (PST), Piotr Mis
wrote:

?roda, 6 stycznia 2021 o*08:39:02 UTC+1 Andreas Maurer napisa?(a):
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 23:34:48 -0800 (PST), Surge
wrote:
Have you actually flown a Nimbus 2? I suggest you organise a test flight before making the purchase. Maybe you can organise a dual in something with an all flying elevator like a Janus first.
I would never lend my Numbus 2 to a pilot with so few hours. Never.

ok, so I understand that you consider a flight in Nimbus executed by a 70 hours pilot would be very dangerous to a both glider and pilot. But what exactly are the factors of that danger? is it just "no, because no" type of argumentation or do you mean any particular elements of flying technique / tactics which are neccessary to execute a short, safe flight in good conditions within a gliding range of the airfield, and which a-70-hour pilot cannot possibly have?

Well, under normal circmstances a Nimbus 2 is as harmless as any
ASK-21 (I only have some experience in the Numbus 2C).

But, given your limited experience with gliders that are very, very
easy to fly: You are, sorry to say that, not yet qualified to fly a
Nimbus 2.

Given a careful briefing and some additional training in something
similar (Janus, et cetera) you'll probably be able to fly it safely,
but I would never take the risk to lend ***my*** complex glider to
someone with your credentials showing up one afternoon.


One more advice:
Do not over-estimate the performance of an open class glider. I've
been flying one for ages (some kind of ASH-25, with much, much better
performance than a Nimbus 2), and the performance advantage over old
15m class (ASW-20, LS-3) is about 20 percent.

The Nimbus is much too light - to make it perform, you must fly it
with lots of water ballast. Always.
Without water ballast, the old 15m class is going to outperform a
Nimbus in anything but very slow straight flight or extremely weak
thermals - these situations make perhaps 5 percent of all flying.

Combine that with the fear of landing out (safe landing, disassembly
of a heavy, complex glider, big trailer) - and think twice about
buying something a lot easier to handle. Something you simply pull out
of the trailer, put the wings on and fly after 15 minutes.


Cheers
Andreas

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 15:14:07 -0800 (PST), 2G
wrote:


I am (or was) 6' 2" and fit into an ASW19 just fine with the seat back removed.


6'7" here. ASW-20 fits perfectly.

Cheers
Andreas

On Thu, 07 Jan 2021 02:52:15 +0100, Andreas Maurer wrote:

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 15:14:07 -0800 (PST), 2G
wrote:


I am (or was) 6' 2" and fit into an ASW19 just fine with the seat back
removed.


6'7" here. ASW-20 fits perfectly.


ASW-19, ASW-20 and Pegase all use the same fuselage, so if you're
comfortable in one you will be happy sitting in any of them.


An extra to Andreas' previous comments: I've just discovered, rather to
my amusement, that the all-metal, 18m Open class Antonov A-15 has, on
paper at least, near-identical performance to a Standard Libelle (in
terms of glide ratio and stalling, best-glide and Vne speeds) despite
being around 100kg heavier.

However, I've only ever seen one A-15, at the Sazena, Czechoslovakia club
in 1997. Its quite a pretty glider and I've always wondered how nice they
are to fly: there were several airworthy examples around 20 years ago:
are there any still flying?


--
--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

Martin Gregorie wrote on 1/7/2021 5:18 AM:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2021 02:52:15 +0100, Andreas Maurer wrote:

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 15:14:07 -0800 (PST), 2G
wrote:


I am (or was) 6' 2" and fit into an ASW19 just fine with the seat back
removed.


6'7" here. ASW-20 fits perfectly.


ASW-19, ASW-20 and Pegase all use the same fuselage, so if you're
comfortable in one you will be happy sitting in any of them.


An extra to Andreas' previous comments: I've just discovered, rather to
my amusement, that the all-metal, 18m Open class Antonov A-15 has, on
paper at least, near-identical performance to a Standard Libelle (in
terms of glide ratio and stalling, best-glide and Vne speeds) despite
being around 100kg heavier.

However, I've only ever seen one A-15, at the Sazena, Czechoslovakia club
in 1997. Its quite a pretty glider and I've always wondered how nice they
are to fly: there were several airworthy examples around 20 years ago:
are there any still flying?

Wikipedia lists it with a 17 m span. Were there variants? It looks so much like a Schreder
design (HP-14, etc), I'm wondering if it also had 90 degree flaps and the same structure. With
350 produced, according to Wikipedia, it seems there should still be many around, somewhere.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

On Thu, 07 Jan 2021 06:25:57 -0800, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Martin Gregorie wrote on 1/7/2021 5:18 AM:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2021 02:52:15 +0100, Andreas Maurer wrote:

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 15:14:07 -0800 (PST), 2G
wrote:


I am (or was) 6' 2" and fit into an ASW19 just fine with the seat
back removed.


6'7" here. ASW-20 fits perfectly.


ASW-19, ASW-20 and Pegase all use the same fuselage, so if you're
comfortable in one you will be happy sitting in any of them.


An extra to Andreas' previous comments: I've just discovered, rather to
my amusement, that the all-metal, 18m Open class Antonov A-15 has, on
paper at least, near-identical performance to a Standard Libelle (in
terms of glide ratio and stalling, best-glide and Vne speeds) despite
being around 100kg heavier.

However, I've only ever seen one A-15, at the Sazena, Czechoslovakia
club in 1997. Its quite a pretty glider and I've always wondered how
nice they are to fly: there were several airworthy examples around 20
years ago: are there any still flying?

Wikipedia lists it with a 17 m span. Were there variants? It looks so
much like a Schreder design (HP-14, etc), I'm wondering if it also had
90 degree flaps and the same structure. With 350 produced, according to
Wikipedia, it seems there should still be many around, somewhere.

18m was my mistake - should have written 17m - but some sources do say it
was an 18m glider. Sources disagree on its and weight performance too.

It uses Fowler flaps and Martin Simons says the ailerons droop with them,
but I haven't found any description of what the maximum flap angle would
be. Since the flaps form the underside of the TE when retracted, it seems
unlikely that setting them negative is possible. It has conventional top-
surface airbrakes with a single, perforated paddle.

It can carry up to 50kg of water.

I do wonder how much benefit its retractable undercarriage is, because
only half the wheel is visible when extended and the fuselage seems to
sit quite close to the ground, so you might expect landout damage to its
undersurface.

I've not seen any references to different versions.


--
--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

czwartek, 7 stycznia 2021 oÂ*02:50:24 UTC+1 Andreas Maurer napisaÅ‚(a):
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 13:38:34 -0800 (PST), Piotr Mis
wrote:

?roda, 6 stycznia 2021 o 08:39:02 UTC+1 Andreas Maurer napisa?(a):
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 23:34:48 -0800 (PST), Surge
wrote:
Have you actually flown a Nimbus 2? I suggest you organise a test flight before making the purchase. Maybe you can organise a dual in something with an all flying elevator like a Janus first.
I would never lend my Numbus 2 to a pilot with so few hours. Never.

ok, so I understand that you consider a flight in Nimbus executed by a 70 hours pilot would be very dangerous to a both glider and pilot. But what exactly are the factors of that danger? is it just "no, because no" type of argumentation or do you mean any particular elements of flying technique / tactics which are neccessary to execute a short, safe flight in good conditions within a gliding range of the airfield, and which a-70-hour pilot cannot possibly have?
Well, under normal circmstances a Nimbus 2 is as harmless as any
ASK-21 (I only have some experience in the Numbus 2C).

But, given your limited experience with gliders that are very, very
easy to fly: You are, sorry to say that, not yet qualified to fly a
Nimbus 2.

Given a careful briefing and some additional training in something
similar (Janus, et cetera) you'll probably be able to fly it safely,
but I would never take the risk to lend ***my*** complex glider to
someone with your credentials showing up one afternoon.


One more advice:
Do not over-estimate the performance of an open class glider. I've
been flying one for ages (some kind of ASH-25, with much, much better
performance than a Nimbus 2), and the performance advantage over old
15m class (ASW-20, LS-3) is about 20 percent.

The Nimbus is much too light - to make it perform, you must fly it
with lots of water ballast. Always.
Without water ballast, the old 15m class is going to outperform a
Nimbus in anything but very slow straight flight or extremely weak
thermals - these situations make perhaps 5 percent of all flying.

Combine that with the fear of landing out (safe landing, disassembly
of a heavy, complex glider, big trailer) - and think twice about
buying something a lot easier to handle. Something you simply pull out
of the trailer, put the wings on and fly after 15 minutes.


Cheers
Andreas

Thanks Andreas, I am saving all remarks/advice/comments from all of you in a separate file to come back to them and re-read it if I actually buy that Nimbus (I am still weighing pros and cons, plus currently I need to wait until COVID travelling restrictions are lifted to be able to conclude the deal).
From yours and others' comments I conclude that in order to stay on the safe side I must give much consideration to flying conditions (no strong cross winds) and landing spots because of long landing roll. Since I am quite determined to refrain myself from any attempts of long distance xc flying in the first or two years (which I would want ta avoid in any type of glider, also 15m), or attempts of flying in strong cross wind, then I guess that with those two factors of danger ruled out (or at least reduced as much as possible) flying Nimbus should to be pretty harmless as you write.
Maybe it seems to make no sense to get Nimbus for near airfield flying, but I would rather get something which outsizes me a bit in the beginning and grow up to it gradually then getting any 15m of that age availabe. My budget is limited and that particular Nimbus seems to be a bargain, being in really good shape, having already had 3000h service life extension inspection with 2300 hours of flying till next inspection. Other 15m gliders of its age have usually aroun 500-100 hours left before costly 3000h inspection.
Question of hard rigging is of course an issue, but I am planning to keep it hangared for the season (one month = 23 EUR) with taking only wing tips off after flying.
Aside from rational arguments I got the similar feeling as I had buying my motorbike: Ducati Monster 1000 ie. Everyone was saying it was an old fashioned, dangerous, defective, inconvinient bike and a more modern Japanese machine would make much more sense. I agreed it shurely would. Then I bought Monster and I love it

best reg
Piotr

czwartek, 7 stycznia 2021 oÂ*00:19:50 UTC+1 napisaÅ‚(a):
Dne středa 6. ledna 2021 v 22:38:36 UTC+1 uživatel napsal:
środa, 6 stycznia 2021 o 08:39:02 UTC+1 Andreas Maurer napisał(a):
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 23:34:48 -0800 (PST), Surge
wrote:
Have you actually flown a Nimbus 2? I suggest you organise a test flight before making the purchase. Maybe you can organise a dual in something with an all flying elevator like a Janus first.
I would never lend my Numbus 2 to a pilot with so few hours. Never.
ok, so I understand that you consider a flight in Nimbus executed by a 70 hours pilot would be very dangerous to a both glider and pilot. But what exactly are the factors of that danger? is it just "no, because no" type of argumentation or do you mean any particular elements of flying technique / tactics which are neccessary to execute a short, safe flight in good conditions within a gliding range of the airfield, and which a-70-hour pilot cannot possibly have?
Hi,
Im in similar position as you (150H PIC in GLD and TMG) and Im starting scanning market for first glider too. Im not flying Nimbus2 so Im not able to camment in flight characteristics, but Nimbus 2b was bought by another club-member (after about 2- 3years flying XC in low performance gliders) so there are some notes only from ground. Long wings are quite low so you have to watch it, which is challenging when flying in cross-winds and ground runs at takeoff and landings are looong, because this thing is simply heavy. Some folks above sad it can be landed short but you have to be on exactly right speed, OK for airport with stable or no wind and free space before touchdown zone, in not known place and some croswind I woud like to keep some more speed probably, ant then ground run can be quite long. So this combination is for safe outlanding for me big NO, and from my experince in air (sinks can be prety strong) when Im not sure than I can land plane in field I don't leave airport from my sight, so there is no need to have big L/D because you can fly in same are with L13. About flaps I dont right to say nothing because I dont fly plane with them, but I fly TMG and I know that every one lever or button you have to push, need your attention especially when you are learning new plane. And when things are not optimal there is not a small chance you forget something. This is up to you if you thing that in glider that you flying you are enough relaxed so you are able to keep up with more workload.

Thank you very much for a comment, I am glad to get some input from someone who is facing a similar type of dilemma
Your remarks seem to confirm most of the warnings that I get. For some reason, though, I believe that paradoxicaly, flying a glider which sort of "outsizes" my skills may increase rather than decrease the safety. Why? I experienced a similar thing when I began to ride a motorbike. I bought one which was too strong, too fast, too dangerous for me in opinions of many people.. Knowing that, I drove it very very carefully for the first two years, and here I am, still riding it and enjoying a lot. If you get something which is said to be easy to fly, then you start off with a mindset of flying an easy glider. Are there really "easy" gliders? the ones in which you can make a 55% bank turn before a final at 60km/h speed at 30m AGL?
I am no expert but I guess even the "safest" glider would kill you. Of course you would say that no experienced pilot would ever do it, but interestingly, even exeperience is not a guarantee of safety. Recently I came across a study of glider accidents conducted by French "Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses (BEA) pour la Sécurité de l'Aviation civile" concerning gliding accidents in France 1999-2001. It shows that in 114 accidents 16 were caused by pilots with less than 100 hours experience, and 98 by those with more than 100 h experience. Those caused by less then 100h pilots resulted in 1 death, thouse by more than 100h resulted in 19 deaths.
I guess after all it is JUDGMENT which is crucial, not glider type, experience etc. And maybe a bit of luck? ...

best regards
Piotr

Piotr Mis wrote on 1/9/2021 3:19 PM:
Recently I came across a study of glider accidents conducted by French "Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses (BEA) pour la Sécurité de l'Aviation civile" concerning gliding accidents in France 1999-2001. It shows that in 114 accidents 16 were caused by pilots with less than 100 hours experience, and 98 by those with more than 100 h experience. Those caused by less then 100h pilots resulted in 1 death, thouse by more than 100h resulted in 19 deaths.
I guess after all it is JUDGMENT which is crucial, not glider type, experience etc. And maybe a bit of luck? ...

Do not take any comfort in those numbers. The _exposure_ to risk is much higher in pilots with
over 100 hours, compared to those with less than 100 hours. It does not make sense to compare
the number of accidents at less than 100 hours, to those that might have 1000 hours, or 5000
hours. It also does not take note of the number of pilots flying with over 100 hours, which is
likely many more than those with less than 100 hours.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1