Newbie seeking glider purchase advice

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 09:49:14 -0700, "Ted Wagner"
wrote:

If anyone has recently been through this process of finding out what all the
options are in a nicely distilled format, or where I might find some good
Internet resource on the subject, I would greatly appreciate it.

Bad idea - if you ask ten glider pilots, you are going to get at least
11 entirely different opinions.

Check Google for your question - the same is being asked here at least
four times per year, and usually followed by a huge discussion.


Bye
Andreas

Andreas,

Yes, I expected to get as many different opinions. But they are nonetheless
informative and helpful, which is all I could ask.

And I did check Google ... but was not satisfied with what I got.

-ted

"Andreas Maurer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 09:49:14 -0700, "Ted Wagner"
wrote:

If anyone has recently been through this process of finding out what all
the
options are in a nicely distilled format, or where I might find some good
Internet resource on the subject, I would greatly appreciate it.

Bad idea - if you ask ten glider pilots, you are going to get at least
11 entirely different opinions.

Check Google for your question - the same is being asked here at least
four times per year, and usually followed by a huge discussion.


Bye
Andreas

Dear Ted,
you found a lot of answers to your question, many of them really
informative.
In fact, it is not so important, what type of plane you buy. Anyhow, you
will have to learn to fly your new ship, and you always will have to start
your training very careful, with a little bit of distrust in the abilities
of the new glider and yourself. It will take you from 50 to 100 hours to
learn to fly good with the new bird.
Whats more important: since you want to fly (as opposed to repair, polish
and assemble) your new plane, get some 'professional help' to make shure
that the plane and the trailer are ok. Also make shure that the plane can be
repaired by somebody close to your area. Keep some of your money left to buy
things, which are nearly as important as the plane itself: p.e. a good
parachute, a modern vario/navigation system, and a FAI logger with some
software. The latter items will allow you to compare your fligths with the
flights of others the same day in your area, and this really helps!
If you made a good deal, you will be able to sell yor glider without loosing
money, if you need a better one.
For the start, I would recommend you something in the 15m range without
flaps, but as I wrote, this is not so important.
Best regards
Walter

I'm primarily a motorplane driver with a glider rating that has from
time to time also considered a glider purchase. Well it ain't happened
yet but while snooping through this newsgroup a couple of years ago, I
came across the attached article. I think the author shows some wisdom
and maybe you can use the info in your glider search.

Ted Wagner wrote:

I'm a new glider pilot, having just switched my FAI air sport of choice
after 23 years of leaping out of airplanes.

By this summer it is almost certain I'll be purchasing my own glider. I'm
interested in having fun, cross-country (eventually competing), and having
fun, in that order.

I've read about a dozen back issues of the Soaring magazines laying about my
local club, but I have yet to come across a layman's buyer's guide (or any,
for that matter). I've done some 'Net surfing as well, with no luck. And I'm
surprised by the variety of manufacturers and models. I've gleaned enough to
suspect that my final choice will be something along the lines of a PW-5,
L-33 solo, or AC-4. But what about the 304-CZ? And why are there no American
glider manufacturers to speak of? (I know, too many trial lawyers with too
much free time.)

If anyone has recently been through this process of finding out what all the
options are in a nicely distilled format, or where I might find some good
Internet resource on the subject, I would greatly appreciate it.

-Ted in Tempe




Buying Your First Glider

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, they are not Wood, Metal and Glass. What sailplanes are made of has alot to do with why you buy one. But you will find those materials in alltypes of aircraft. The three kinds of sailplanes are those that cost $5,000, $10,000 and $20,000. Granted, many sailplanes cost more than that, but if you're in the market for one of those, you are likely not buying your first sailplane. I knew a guy in the Army who used to count 1, 2, 3, .......many. He figured that he could beat any three guys. If there weremore than that he was going to run anyway so it didn't matter how many there were. If you're in the many dollars category, this article is not for you.
When you last bought a glider, how did you make the decision? I know, youdon't own a glider. I didn't say you owned a glider. I'm talking about the one you bought the last time you went to the gliderport, read Soaring magazine, walked the display floor at the convention or thumbed through the pages of the Sailplane Directory. That glider. When we buy a glider, we all use the same criteria: Lift/Drag (L/D) ratio. We even admit that the sustainer motor, heads up display, and flight computer are a little beyond our means. What we really want are 60:1 L/D, carbon fiber spars, a Kevlar fuselage and winglets: World Championship Stuff.

Yet it's strange that of the characteristics that we use when we own a glider, L/D is one of the least important. What! The sacred Grail of sailplane performance is unimportant? Unless you are a world class competitor, it is. Whether you fly a Grunau Baby or a Nimbus III, when was the last time you used the L/D in whatever you fly? Did you go out of glide range of the field? Or did you stay one thermal away? If it's the latter, you were using the sink rate of your plane, and not the L/D. When the day was done, did you compare notes on who flew the farthest, or did you see who topped out the highest thermal? You were using sink rate, and not L/D. On the way home did you delight in how much faster you flew a triangle or did you chortle at how you outclimbed another glider? You were using sink rate and not L/D. When you think about it, unless we're on a badge flight,we don't use the L/D of our plane in our daily flying.

What does that have to do with the kind of plane we buy? A lot. Let's forget about the plane we bought at the convention, and look at what we wanta plane to do for us:

1. Survivability: Stay up on weak days. Better yet, stay up on crummy days. Unless you live in Uvalde, strong days always happen on Wednesday. Youwant a plane that can stay up when the birds are flapping their wings. It's what lets you tiptoe home when the day dies. It's what lets you fly while the hot ships are on the ground. This takes low wing loading and a climbing airfoil.

2. Room: Americans are taller than their European ancestors. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to stretch out in the cockpit? How many hot birds do you know of that have different size cockpits as different model numbers? The limiting factor here is length. You can accept a narrow cockpit more easily than a short one.

3. Maintainability: We thought fiberglass would last forever. Maybe it does, but gelcoat doesn't. Have you priced a refinish job on a glass bird lately? It can be more than the purchase price of a used plane. How about a plane you can tie out once in a while, or that can fly in wave without worrying about the finish peeling off?

4. Performance: Enough performance. A respectable glide ratio, low stall speed and no bad habits in addition to survivability. We're supposed to enjoy our flight, not ride around on the edge of a razor blade all day. It's hard to achieve ultimate performance. It's not quite so hard to get good performance. This takes a careful balance between weight, airfoil and material.

5. Price: Affordable. That means a different things to different people. Whatever your means are, the price should fit your lifestyle without pain. That way you keep flying. Some adjustments in your flying style may mean the difference between flying and not flying. That's what partners are for.

6. Instrumentation: Heads Up Displays are great. So are flight computers.But they're no substitute for a pilot. They can cost more than the planeif you're not careful. Before you invest in electronic widgets, get a copy of Reichmann's "Cross Country Soaring" for another perspective. Bewarethough. He's the kind of engineer who beats personal computers with a bamboo slide rule. He likes simple panels.

7. Landoutability. It's a word. A plane with modest performance that can land out may make more sense than one with more performance that cannot. If you can't land outside the gliderport, what good is a magnificent L/D?The size of landing fields where you fly has something to do with your choice of plane too. Very small fields in the northeast will require shorter landing capability than will the trackless steppes of Colorado. Think about that when you consider a retractable gear leg over a skid under thenose.

8. Trailer: Probably the most overlooked feature of a glider purchase. You have to be able to put it together, take it apart, and take it with youwith a reasonable amount of effort. It should also keep the plane dry and not eat the car in the process.

Good climb, big cockpit, short field capability, OK glide, not hard to keep up, easy to tow around and cheap. Sounds great doesn't it? But it's not the plane you bought in your dreams on the floor at the convention. What kind of plane are we talking about? Let's look at a typical classified section of Soaring and see what we can find.


Type I - $5,000 - $10,000
Schweizer 1-26
Schweizer 2-22
Cherokee
Schleicher K-8, K-6
Duster
Monerai
Marske Monarch
Schempp Hirth Standard Austria
Schreder HP-11, 14
Type II - $10,000 - $15,000
Schweizer 1-34, 2-33
Libelle
Schleicher ASW-15
Schreder HP-18, RS-15
Blanik L-13
Type III - $15,000 - $20,000
Schweizer 1-35, 1-36
Schempp-Hirth Open Cirrus
Lark IS-29
Pik 20B
Grob 102
Glassflugel Kestral 17/19
Jantar 1,2,3
The list is not all inclusive. But it should give you an idea. There are some great planes out there that you wouldn't think of if you buy a planebased on L/D. A group of very different aircraft. What puts them on the list? If they have one thing in common, it's that they were all world class aircraft in their day. They may not have the specifications of currentdesigns today, but that doesn't take a thing away from the performance, handling and manners that they have. An old Ferrari is still a Ferrari. Let's look at some of the types we've found we've found.
Standard Austria: Type I. A world champion in it's day. Wood and fabric. 17 meter span. Great survivability. It even has a 38:1 glide ratio, although it comes in at a lower speed than it does on some current birds. Performance like this is typical of the wood and fabric super ships. Excellent climb and handling, good L/D, smallish cockpit and panel. Lighter than current birds. The Zugvogel is a like aircraft, but with a steel tube fuselage. The K-6, K-8 and Sagitta have lower glide ratios but otherwise they're typical world class, 15 meter, wood and fabric aircraft. Comparable two seaters like the K-13, are Phase III aircraft and perform much like the single seaters. Interestingly enough, single seater cockpits tended tobe copies of the front seat of the equivalent two seater for easy conversion after solo. Schleicher built an interesting open trailer with a cloth cover that is very light and tows well.

Wood and fabric aircraft are excellent climbers, many have skids and fixed wheels that only cost a point or two on the L/D and outland well. They're slower than most glass birds, but still show well at regionals on light days. They're good sports class competitors. They need regular TLC, butif they're kept dry they seem to last forever. If you're local repair person hasn't seen wood and fabric in a while, contact the British Glider Association and get a copy of their glider repair manual. It'll tell you everything you need to know about maintaining a wood and fabric aircraft.

Schweizer birds are surprising performers on this list. Metal, rugged, roomy, great on climb and good on the run. They were world class competitors in their day and quality performers today. A 1-34 was the 1988 NationalSports Class Champion. The 1-35 was a competitive 15 meter ship until glass caught up with it. Metal aircraft have a long lasting finish. Even when they need refinishing, there's little worry about maintaining the surface profile. It's a paint job.

Two seaters are Phase II or III aircraft. The 2-32 is the glider of choice for two seat wave flights. The Schweizer 2-33 is very strong, climbs well and has a relatively low glide ratio. But when you consider its role as a basic trainer that's not all that relevant. You don't buy one as a cross country ship. You could buy a 2-33 and a couple of 1-26's for what you would pay to refinish a popular glass two seater in average condition. That's a fleet where I come from. Metal is commonly used in European trainers. The Blanik and Lark are both popular two seaters that are good for cross country training, basic training and acrobatics.

Open Cirrus. Type III. When glass first entered the marketplace, aircrafthad pretty much reached the state of the art with existing materials. Open Class wood was 17 meters. The first Open Class glass birds mimicked the wood and fabric birds. Climbing wing, big cockpit, good handling, and what is still a great L/D today. They were so hot by comparison that most had a drogue chute in the tail. Today their performance is still equal tothe best standard class birds. Glassflugel build a number of Kestrel variants. Slingsby built a licensed version. Early models of the Open Jantarfit the same profile. A number of the early glass birds were built like their wood predecessors and fit the same profile. Old Open Glass can be very nice.

Homebuilts. Buying factory built gliders is difficult enough. Homebuilts add another dimension. With a factory aircraft you're concerned with repair history and maintenance. With a homebuilt you're worried about that too but you're also concerned with who built it in the first place. It would be easy to pass them by if it weren't for the tremendous value in homebuilts. The Cherokee is a wood and fabric aircraft with the performance ofa 1-26 at half the cost. The Monari offers mid range performance in a small package. Jim Marske may well have bridged the gulf between the hang glider and the sailplane with the Monarch. The classic deal in homebuilts is the HP series. Dick Schreder designed them as personal competition steeds. He sold kits so the rest of us can fly them. Just take someone with you who understands how to build the design you're interested in.

Vintage Aircraft. Once you get over the idea of L/D as the only buying criteria, you find a lot of other reasons for buying a sailplane. You're not trying to go anywhere in some vintage ships. You're just trying to stayup. Silver distance is a real achievement in some of them, and a piece of cake in others. There are some real values in Vintage Class, and some very interesting aircraft.

Have I caught your interest? Do you want to know more? The November '83 issue of Soaring magazine is the latest Soaring Directory. It's a great place to start, but it doesn't go into a great deal of detail. The best evaluation of early glass and late wood and metal is "Winning On The Wind" by George Moffat. 1974 was early enough in the introduction of glass that the book is full of the kind of aircraft we're interested in. The JohnsonFlight Tests are another excellent source of evaluations. You have to see the tuft testing he did on the Pik 20B.

When you start thinking about gliders in terms of the way we fly them at the gliderport instead of the way we buy them in our fantasies, one manufacturer ranks high in all price classes: Schweizer. American size cockpits, good performance, metal construction. They had a 1-34 running around at 38:1 with fairings at the end of the production run. It makes you wonder if Schweizer Aircraft didn't have it right all along and we just let ourselves be seduced by pale skin, long legs and a foreign accent. Do you think they'd forgive us if we asked them nicely?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Come on.

"The 1-35 was a competitive 15 meter ship until glass caught up with
it."

The 1-35 was never competitive. When it came out in 1973 it was
already totally outclassed by glass ships such as the Standard Cirrus.

This one example serves to illustrate that whoever wrote this article
doesn't know alot about high performance sailplanes.

This article is written from the perspective of someone who is content
to never go beyond aimless local flying. If that describes you, then
follow his recomendations.

(Liam Finley) wrote in message . com...
Come on.

"The 1-35 was a competitive 15 meter ship until glass caught up with
it."

The 1-35 was never competitive. When it came out in 1973 it was
already totally outclassed by glass ships such as the Standard Cirrus.

This one example serves to illustrate that whoever wrote this article
doesn't know alot about high performance sailplanes.

This article is written from the perspective of someone who is content
to never go beyond aimless local flying. If that describes you, then
follow his recomendations.

So anyone who doesn't want the highest performing ship is just someone
who wants to do "aimless local flying"? What a stupid remark.
Attitudes like yours is why soaring is dying in this country (USA).
To measure all soaring in terms of competitive flying has caused a
whole lot of good and enthusiastic pilots to leave our sport.

Who gives a damn what a pilot is content with doing--as long as they
do it safe and they enjoy flying. Soaring has an ugly status
conscious band in it that will cause its demise. I picked up a recent
edition of "Soaring" and it look about 10 pages long. Membership is
going down in the SSA and glider activity at my local gliderports is
non-existent on some weekends.

The 1-35 is a good and capable ship that has made lots of pilots
happy. More pilots DON'T fly competitions than do. And those of you
who do, great. But soaring needs ALL glider pilots.

The 1-35 is a good and capable ship that has made lots of pilots
happy.

50 miles from home, I watched a 1-35 slowly climb away as I landed in my
DG-300. Would have traded even for some of what that 1-35 was doing that my
glass bird wasn't. I think it would make an excellent ship to try for some
altitude records.


JJ Sinclair

(Peter W) wrote in message om...
So anyone who doesn't want the highest performing ship is just someone
who wants to do "aimless local flying"? What a stupid remark.
Attitudes like yours is why soaring is dying in this country (USA).
To measure all soaring in terms of competitive flying has caused a
whole lot of good and enthusiastic pilots to leave our sport.

Who gives a damn what a pilot is content with doing--as long as they
do it safe and they enjoy flying. Soaring has an ugly status
conscious band in it that will cause its demise. I picked up a recent
edition of "Soaring" and it look about 10 pages long. Membership is
going down in the SSA and glider activity at my local gliderports is
non-existent on some weekends.

The 1-35 is a good and capable ship that has made lots of pilots
happy. More pilots DON'T fly competitions than do. And those of you
who do, great. But soaring needs ALL glider pilots.

You have an almost uncanny ability to miss the point.

As a matter of fact, I am not a competition pilot myself, so why would
I measure all soaring in terms of competetive flying? You are
projecting, pure and simple.

You're pretty quick to launch into this canard about competition
pilots causing the decline of soaring. What did competition pilots
ever do to you? Did one of them steal your girlfriend?

In my experience, competition pilots tend to be among the most
deadicated members of the sport, and are generally very helpfull and
encouraging to newcomers who show a degree of enthusiasm and desire to
learn.

So how exactly are these people causing the decline of the sport?

In my experience, it is the guys who stick to aimless local flying who
get bored and drop out, the guys who get into cross country flying
stay in it for the long haul. The article in question was written, in
my opinion, to encourage the former and not the latter, hence I do not
like it.

(Liam Finley) wrote in message
You're pretty quick to launch into this canard about competition
pilots causing the decline of soaring. What did competition pilots
ever do to you? Did one of them steal your girlfriend?

In my experience, competition pilots tend to be among the most
deadicated members of the sport, and are generally very helpfull and
encouraging to newcomers who show a degree of enthusiasm and desire to
learn.

So how exactly are these people causing the decline of the sport?

In my experience, it is the guys who stick to aimless local flying who
get bored and drop out, the guys who get into cross country flying
stay in it for the long haul. The article in question was written, in
my opinion, to encourage the former and not the latter, hence I do not
like it.

It's obvious from your juvenile remarks that it isn't worth having a
discussion with you. The article in question has been around for a
long time and gives some very good advice on buying a first glider.
The main point being that L/D shouldn't be the major criteria and that
other more important practical things should be considered. You must
have not read the article since it certainly was not focused on
"aimless local flying" excluding advice on planes suitable for cross
country work.

As for the decline of soaring, it should be obvious to every glider
pilot in this country that the sport is in trouble. For years the SSA
was dominated by the competition crowd and this certainly hasn't
helped the situation. Having a discussion about soaring's future
would be pointless with a dim bulb like yourself.

With the new sport pilot class ready to take off I predict that
soaring will lose even more prospective new pilots to it and general
aviation.

Thanks for reminding me why I quit soaring for 10 years. I'm asking
myself why I want to return to this sport.

I ask for some concrete facts to support your thesis that competition
pilots are responsible for the decline of soaring, and all you can do
is call me names. Oh well. We obviously have differing opinions on
what constitutes juvenile behavior.

Welcome back.

(Peter W) wrote in message . com...
It's obvious from your juvenile remarks that it isn't worth having a
discussion with you. The article in question has been around for a
long time and gives some very good advice on buying a first glider.
The main point being that L/D shouldn't be the major criteria and that
other more important practical things should be considered. You must
have not read the article since it certainly was not focused on
"aimless local flying" excluding advice on planes suitable for cross
country work.

As for the decline of soaring, it should be obvious to every glider
pilot in this country that the sport is in trouble. For years the SSA
was dominated by the competition crowd and this certainly hasn't
helped the situation. Having a discussion about soaring's future
would be pointless with a dim bulb like yourself.

With the new sport pilot class ready to take off I predict that
soaring will lose even more prospective new pilots to it and general
aviation.

Thanks for reminding me why I quit soaring for 10 years. I'm asking
myself why I want to return to this sport.