Experience in Club Class competitions has suggested
that handicapping may not be quite right. The more
modern types such as the LS4 and DG300 don’t generally
seem to do quite as well as the older Standard Cirrus,
Standard Libelle and Grob Astir.

I own a Standard Cirrus, but occasionally hire LS4s
and DG300s. There is no doubt that the latter do go
better, particularly at higher speed, but the Cirrus
has a lower circling speed and will climb better in
the typical weak, narrow British thermals. In the glide,
the later types with their thinner wings are definitely
better, especially above about 65 knots.

The Current UK Handicapping system is based on the
Discus 2 and equivalent = 100. On this basis the Standard
Cirrus has a handicap rating of 90, or 91 if fitted
with winglets, and the LS4 and DG300 are 96. In the
un-handicapped Standard Class Nationals even a first
class pilot would probably struggle to finish outside
the bottom 25% if he had to fly a Standard Cirrus.


However these ratings are based on the ability to carry
water ballast, which is not allowed in the Club Class.
Not carrying water ballast is reckoned to reduce a
glider’s speed rating by about 2%, so the Standard
Cirrus should really be 88 and the LS4 94 in Club Class
mode. That would give the Cirrus a handicap advantage
of 6.4% over the LS4, rather than the nominal 6.2%.
The Standard Cirrus and the Astir are also pure second
generation glass-fibre technology and built like well
constructed brick outbuildings, so are relatively heavy
in the first place and can’t carry very much water
ballast.

Obviously different conditions favour different types.
Flying a Standard Cirrus I always fancy my chances
on short’ish tasks in weak conditions with not too
much wind. I don’t fancy very long fixed tasks in booming
conditions, as it is easy to run out of the best part
of the day in a slower glider. Assigned area tasks
are also good for me, as they allow the same amount
of time (and good weather soaring slot) to fly as far
and as quickly as my glider and myself are capable
of. I can fly 6% less distance than an LS4 and still
beat it.

Perhaps glider handicaps ought to be rethought, but
should be purely based on the actual sink rates and
polar curves of the gliders and some sort of mathematical
model of average soaring conditions. Actual performance
in competitions may be biased by the best pilots choosing
certain types.

Derek Copeland