Which 18m FES sailplane to buy?

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 7:23:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:

I witness a LAK 17b FES 21 meter termination of the tow at tree top,about 25 meters high. No place to land.

The pilot turn the motor on flew away found a thermal and came back 5 hours
later.

But if Benhir buys a FES sooner rather than later, he will miss a lot of the FUN and ADVENTURE of landing out.

Le mardi 8 décembre 2015 17:36:06 UTC-5, a écrit*:
I'm considering the purchase of an 18m FES equipped sailplane, and would like to hear thoughts and opinions about the various options available. I'm seeking a cross country machine with long legs and a highly reliable sustainer. An 18m FES sailplane should fit that requirement nicely.

I'm a somewhat green pilot, but in the year or so before a new glider could be manufactured and delivered, I will have accumulated some more experience in my club's DG-505 and DG-1000. I have eliminated the Ventus 2cx as a possibility, due to the aircraft's reputation as being unsuitable for low-time pilots. In the 18m class, that leaves the following gliders that are available with a FES system:

- Discus 2c
- Lak-17B
- HpH 304S Shark

All three appear to have similar performance, as best I can tell from published data. I don't plan to be racing any time soon, so a difference of a few points in best glide ratio is not significant to me.

According to the flight reports that I've read, all three feature docile handling that should not be a problem for a low-time pilot. The Lak-17B and HpH Shark have flaps. I have thoroughly researched the apparently controversial issue of whether flapped ships are suitable for low-time pilots, and am convinced that they are more of an asset than a liability.

In the interests of staying on topic, let's not make this thread about flaps or the FES. These topics have already been thoroughly discussed on RAS. Please start a new thread or add to an old thread if you wish to discuss further.

I'll list some of the pros and cons of each ship that I can see, but would love to hear if anyone disagrees with them, or has anything to add.

Discus 2c
- Pros: Reputation for excellent handling. Optional GRS. Possibly higher resale value and ease of selling due to its popularity.
- Cons: No flaps.

Lak-17B
- Pros: Lower cost (better value) than the other two. Half the lead time of the other two (6 vs 12 mo).
- Cons: No safety cockpit.

HpH Shark
- Pros: Good looking (purely my opinion).
- Cons: Every flight review I've read says it handles well but... every reviewer had at least one negative thing to say about the handling. Hard to draw conclusions, but some doubt as been cast in my mind.

By now it may be clear which one I'm leaning toward. However, I wouldn't have posted this if my mind wasn't open to others' opinions, so I welcome and appreciate your thoughts. In the end, the decision will come down to what's most important to me: safety and handling. I guess what I'm really seeking is a double-check on my thinking regarding this rather significant purchase.

Cheers,
Ben


It was not intentional!!!

Le mardi 8 décembre 2015 17:36:06 UTC-5, a écrit*:
I'm considering the purchase of an 18m FES equipped sailplane, and would like to hear thoughts and opinions about the various options available. I'm seeking a cross country machine with long legs and a highly reliable sustainer. An 18m FES sailplane should fit that requirement nicely.

I'm a somewhat green pilot, but in the year or so before a new glider could be manufactured and delivered, I will have accumulated some more experience in my club's DG-505 and DG-1000. I have eliminated the Ventus 2cx as a possibility, due to the aircraft's reputation as being unsuitable for low-time pilots. In the 18m class, that leaves the following gliders that are available with a FES system:

- Discus 2c
- Lak-17B
- HpH 304S Shark

All three appear to have similar performance, as best I can tell from published data. I don't plan to be racing any time soon, so a difference of a few points in best glide ratio is not significant to me.

According to the flight reports that I've read, all three feature docile handling that should not be a problem for a low-time pilot. The Lak-17B and HpH Shark have flaps. I have thoroughly researched the apparently controversial issue of whether flapped ships are suitable for low-time pilots, and am convinced that they are more of an asset than a liability.

In the interests of staying on topic, let's not make this thread about flaps or the FES. These topics have already been thoroughly discussed on RAS. Please start a new thread or add to an old thread if you wish to discuss further.

I'll list some of the pros and cons of each ship that I can see, but would love to hear if anyone disagrees with them, or has anything to add.

Discus 2c
- Pros: Reputation for excellent handling. Optional GRS. Possibly higher resale value and ease of selling due to its popularity.
- Cons: No flaps.

Lak-17B
- Pros: Lower cost (better value) than the other two. Half the lead time of the other two (6 vs 12 mo).
- Cons: No safety cockpit.

HpH Shark
- Pros: Good looking (purely my opinion).
- Cons: Every flight review I've read says it handles well but... every reviewer had at least one negative thing to say about the handling. Hard to draw conclusions, but some doubt as been cast in my mind.

By now it may be clear which one I'm leaning toward. However, I wouldn't have posted this if my mind wasn't open to others' opinions, so I welcome and appreciate your thoughts. In the end, the decision will come down to what's most important to me: safety and handling. I guess what I'm really seeking is a double-check on my thinking regarding this rather significant purchase.

Cheers,
Ben

It was not intentional

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 7:23:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Le mardi 8 décembre 2015 17:36:06 UTC-5, a écrit*:
I'm considering the purchase of an 18m FES equipped sailplane, and would like to hear thoughts and opinions about the various options available. I'm seeking a cross country machine with long legs and a highly reliable sustainer. An 18m FES sailplane should fit that requirement nicely.

I'm a somewhat green pilot, but in the year or so before a new glider could be manufactured and delivered, I will have accumulated some more experience in my club's DG-505 and DG-1000. I have eliminated the Ventus 2cx as a possibility, due to the aircraft's reputation as being unsuitable for low-time pilots. In the 18m class, that leaves the following gliders that are available with a FES system:

- Discus 2c
- Lak-17B
- HpH 304S Shark

All three appear to have similar performance, as best I can tell from published data. I don't plan to be racing any time soon, so a difference of a few points in best glide ratio is not significant to me.

According to the flight reports that I've read, all three feature docile handling that should not be a problem for a low-time pilot. The Lak-17B and HpH Shark have flaps. I have thoroughly researched the apparently controversial issue of whether flapped ships are suitable for low-time pilots, and am convinced that they are more of an asset than a liability.

In the interests of staying on topic, let's not make this thread about flaps or the FES. These topics have already been thoroughly discussed on RAS. Please start a new thread or add to an old thread if you wish to discuss further.

I'll list some of the pros and cons of each ship that I can see, but would love to hear if anyone disagrees with them, or has anything to add.

Discus 2c
- Pros: Reputation for excellent handling. Optional GRS. Possibly higher resale value and ease of selling due to its popularity.
- Cons: No flaps.

Lak-17B
- Pros: Lower cost (better value) than the other two. Half the lead time of the other two (6 vs 12 mo).
- Cons: No safety cockpit.

HpH Shark
- Pros: Good looking (purely my opinion).
- Cons: Every flight review I've read says it handles well but... every reviewer had at least one negative thing to say about the handling. Hard to draw conclusions, but some doubt as been cast in my mind.

By now it may be clear which one I'm leaning toward. However, I wouldn't have posted this if my mind wasn't open to others' opinions, so I welcome and appreciate your thoughts. In the end, the decision will come down to what's most important to me: safety and handling. I guess what I'm really seeking is a double-check on my thinking regarding this rather significant purchase.

Cheers,
Ben

Hi

I witness a LAK 17b FES 21 meter termination of the tow at tree top,about 25 meters high. No place to land.

The pilot turn the motor on flew away found a thermal and came back 5 hours
later.

Any other glider would have been destroyed.

I also think the Shark is nice looking and appears to me a little better quality than LAK.

Someone told me that the Shark is an older design and true L/D is lower than newer design gliders. And for all I know is same design as the 1980's Glasflugal 304.

LAK has been building glider a long time and the 304 is a proven design. I like German gliders and Czech Republic is closer to Germany than Lithuania and Lithuania use to be part of Russian and I have not liked anything coming out of Russia.

On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:58:06 -0800, benhirashima wrote:

Sure, but why buy an older glider when I can fly my club's gliders? Are
you thinking I'll be able to get more flying time in my own ship? My
club has an ample stable that includes a DG-1000, DG-505 and two Pegasi
that barely get used. So far, getting a glider when I want one hasn't
been a problem.

Grab the Peg(s) and put some serious time onto them. Pegs are nice to fly
and I've always found them more comfortable than a Discus. Besides, its a
shame to let a Peg sit in a hangar when it could be flown.

I got Silver C in my club's SZD Juniors before converting to my club's
high performance fleet (a Peg 90 and two Discii) and spent two years
flying mainly the Peg, which suited me better than the Discii, before
buying.

I almost got Gold distance in the Peg (6 attempts foiled by various
mistakes at up to 100 km from home) and two of us had immense fun flying
it in the local Regionals. I learned a lot from flying it as well as
firming up my ideas about what I wanted in a glider, what I want my panel
to show and where I prefer instruments to be placed.


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

....and no experience with flaps with any of those except, maybe on of
the Pegase models.

On 12/10/2015 4:15 PM, JS wrote:
May I suggest a different concept?
What would be wrong with ordering something like a "Ventus 3 FES" (it won't be called that) and while you're waiting buy and fly a more simple flying machine like an older Discus, LS4 or 7, ASW19, Pegase, etc? You can sell that when the new ship is on the way. At that point you'll be flying a superb new FES glider with a much more experienced approach. Experience might mean having landed out a few times, damaging it while rigging, who knows, but perhaps less stress to learn on the less expensive glider and it's all good for you in the end.
Jim

--
Dan, 5J

Though not an FES, I absolutely love my LAK-17a. It's entirely
different from the Soviet-era LAK-12 and has some features which I
consider to be superior to the German designs. Not all, of course. I
regularly fly with a friend who flies an HPH 304. Both ships seem to
perform equally well.

On 12/11/2015 3:05 AM, Casey Cox wrote:
Lithuania use to be part of Russian and I have not liked anything coming out of Russia

--
Dan, 5J

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 12:23:03 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Though not an FES, I absolutely love my LAK-17a.* It's entirely
different from the Soviet-era LAK-12 and has some features which I
consider to be superior to the German designs.* Not all, of course.*
I regularly fly with a friend who flies an HPH 304.* Both ships seem
to perform equally well.




On 12/11/2015 3:05 AM, Casey Cox wrote:



Lithuania use to be part of Russian and I have not liked anything coming out of Russia




--

Dan, 5J

I fly with Dan M. at Moriarty and I absolutely agree with his comments about modern LAK gliders. My LAK-17B FES is a great ship and I thoroughly enjoy flying it. It is well made, docile, holds no surprises and it really performs. With 3 each, LAK-17s at Moriarty (two As and one B), they have all performed very well over the years with many outstanding flights uploaded to the OLC!

On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:15:17 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote:

...and no experience with flaps with any of those except, maybe on of
the Pegase models.

No flaps on any Pegase that I'm aware of. 101D has carbon spars.

Pegase 90 is the last version and best, with all self-connecting
controls. No, I don't know how many were made or why the 90 should be a
successor to the 101, unless it was the 1990 model.

I had around 200 hours solo before I converted to a flapped glider
(ASW-20) and that seemed about right. I didn't have any problems with
flaps once I learnt to give the stick a good shove as I put in landing
flap on finals (or is the matching speed drop an ASW-20 feature?).
However I reckon it was another 35 hours before I was almost always in
the right flap setting without having to think about it.


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

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 12:51:38 AM UTC+3, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:15:17 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote:

...and no experience with flaps with any of those except, maybe on of
the Pegase models.

No flaps on any Pegase that I'm aware of. 101D has carbon spars.

Pegase 90 is the last version and best, with all self-connecting
controls. No, I don't know how many were made or why the 90 should be a
successor to the 101, unless it was the 1990 model.

I had around 200 hours solo before I converted to a flapped glider
(ASW-20) and that seemed about right. I didn't have any problems with
flaps once I learnt to give the stick a good shove as I put in landing
flap on finals (or is the matching speed drop an ASW-20 feature?).
However I reckon it was another 35 hours before I was almost always in
the right flap setting without having to think about it.

I was 83 hours PIC when I was cleared for solo (and passengers) in a flapped glider -- an original Janus with reputation for bad handling, twitchy all-flying tail, and aero-towing on the belly hook.

Loved that glider!

I don't know about a "shove" on the stick, but before I got rated in it I practiced flying at 65 knots or so and moving the flap lever fairly quickly between -7 and landing flap and back repeatedly, while having no noticeable change in G loading or airspeed.