A FLIGHT TEST EVALUATION OF AN LS-4A

By Richard H. Johnson, Published in Soaring Magazine, 9/84

The LS-4a is Rolladen-Schneider’s newest model fiberglass Standard Class sailplane. The earlier LS-4
model first entered competitions in 1980 and achieved an impressive performance in the 1981 World Cham-
pionships by winning the first seven places in the Standard Class. It used single water ballast bags in each
wing leading edge and was certified up to 1038 lbs. (472 kg) maximum gross weight. The newer -4a model
uses two water ballast bags connected in series inside each wing leading edge, and is certified to 1157 lbs.
(525 kg). A wing loading of 10.24 lb.! ft.2 (50 kg/in2) is thus
achieved with the new -4a model compared to 9.18 lb./ft.2
(44.8 kg/in2) with the earlier version. The newer -4a also in-
cludes a stronger main landing gear system, which can be
retrofitted to the earlier -4, as can the larger dual water sys-
tem.
Although we had long wanted to test one of the LS-4 mod-
els, there were none available within a reasonable distance
of our Caddo Mills test site and our previous efforts failed to
find one available for testing. During the late summer of 1983,
however, Werner Birkelbach of Littlefield, Texas, took deliv-
ery of a new LS-4a. He is an ex-WWII U.S. military glider
pilot, and he kindly made the new sailplane available for flight
testing at Caddo Mills the following winter. Darrel Watson, an
LS-3 owner from Abilene, Texas, helpfully arranged the new
ship’s transport to the test site and agreed to participate in
the test flying.
Figure 1 shows a three-view of the LS-4 along with perti-
nent brochure technical data. It is understood that except for
the larger
number of
ballast con-
tainers (four
instead of
two), the
sturdier land-
ing gear, and
the 119-lb.
(53 kg) high-
er certifi-
cated gross
weight, there was little other difference between the LS-4
and the newer LS-4a models. Being a Standard Class sail-
plane, no wings flaps are included, and this somewhat sim-
plified our flight testing.
The first available weekend arrived with clear skies and
fairly still air above about 3000 ft. AGL. Six high tows were
made to collect sink rate data that weekend, along with two
additional tows during the weather breaks of the following
two weekends. Flight 3’s data were discarded because the
atmosphere
was insuffi-
c i e n t l y
steady.
The data
taken during
those seven
tows, along
with an addi-
tional airspeed calibration flight, were used to prepare the
sink rate polar plot shown as Figure 2. A LiDmax of about
37.5 is shown at 46 knots, followed by a relatively severe
increased drag knee in the polar at 53 knots. At 62 knots the
drag appears to decrease considerably, and a LID of roughly
36 is shown there. Less severe drag knees have been mea-
sured with other modern laminar sailplanes such as the
Ventus and Nimbus 3 (Ref. A and B). The reason for these
knees in the sink rate polars is uncertain but is believed to
be caused by laminar separation bubbles located on the wing
Test pilot/data evaluator Darrel Watson in the LS-4A surface. More information on that phenomenon can be found
cockpit. The thermometer protruding from the canopy in Reference C.
window is used for air temperature measurements To investigate the LS-4a’s wing airflows further, the Ref-
during tow, and is stowed during descents. erence D wing drag monitor probe was mounted on N274W’s
 left wing trailing edge,. 30 inches out from the fuselage side.
A final high tow was then made to record wing drag probe
measurement data in smooth air. Those data are shown in
Figure 3. The probe used during this test was a little taller
than those used in the previously reported tests. It extended
.028 times the chord distance above and below the wing sur-
face, instead of the usual .025c.
This slightly taller than standard wing probe should result
in somewhat lower relative drag indications, if all other things
are equal, because the drag probe pitot holes will be less
immersed within the wing’s low energy boundary layer. If all
the rake pitot holes lie outside the boundary layer, then the
rake total pressure would equal that of the sailplane’s ASI
pitot. That would cause the wing drag ASI to indicate zero
because there would not be any differential air pressure be-
tween its pitot and static inlets.
This lower relative wing drag indication did indeed appear
to occur with the LS-4a test data at sailplane calibrated air-
speeds between 75 and 95 knots. However, below 75 knots
the wing profile drag appears to gradually increase, reaching
significantly higher values between 60 and 40 knots. The rea-
son for the apparent higher-than-expected wing profile drag
below 60 knots is uncertain. Likely, it is due to premature
wing airflow transition to turbulent flow, or a laminar separa-
tion bubble, or a combination of both. Our flight test instru-
mentation was not able to discern which might be the rea-
son, if either. It is quite possible that properly placed turbulator
strips on the wing lower surface will improve N274W’s per-
formance, and that testing still needs to be performed.
After observing the
poorer-than-expected per-
formance indicated by the
first six test measurement
flights, we removed
N274W’s wings to make
sure that proper wing root air
sealing existed there. Only
minor leakage routes could
be found except for a small
radial clearance around the
control pushrod linear bear-
ings. These were then
sealed with light plastic foam
and tape. Also, the water
ballast dump outlets and
water drain holes in the
lower wing surfaces were
carefully taped over for the
remainder of the testing.
However, no significant per-
formance improvements
were noted during the sub-
sequent two sink rate test
flights.
Figure 4 compares our
test LS-4a’s measured po-
lar to 1981 IDAFLIEG test
data for an early German registered LS 4. The IDAFLIEG data for D-2628
show a L/Dmax of about 40.2 at 55 knots, and lower sink rates at all air-
speeds above 42 knots than did our recent LS-4a test data (Ref. E). The
reasons for this are unknown as yet, but additional flight testing of other LS-
4’s may help explain the performance data differences shown. Caution should
be exercised in assuming that all LS-4a’s have the same performance polar
as the one measured here. From top: 4-inch wide main wheel
Our current test LS-4a was beautifully finished with all details showing with internal drum brake; air vent
high quality craftsmanship. The wings were well smoothed, with wave gauge exhaust around and below rudder
chordwise measurements averaging only about .002 inch (.05mm) peak-to- control horns was source of consid-
peak waviness on both top and bottom wing surfaces. Wing panel thick- erable fuselage air noise in cockpit;
ness and chord measurements showed that its tmaxlc ratios were .1632 at wing stub attached to fuselage
the wing roots two inches out from the side of the fuselage, .1636 at the
aileron root sections, and .1479 at the aileron tip. makes wing joint taping easy.
 The cockpit of the LS-4a
is excellent. The gas spring
supported, forward-hinged
canopy is superb, as is its
sealing and latching. The
cam operated left cockpit
side mounted landing gear
handle which is well-posi-
tioned for use is identical to
the LS-3’s, and the best of
any sailplane that I have
flown. It is easy to operate
and positive in action. The
aileron controls are light
and pleasant to operate. An
adequately sized fixed hori-
zontal stabilizer is provided
along with a conventional
moveable trailing edge el-
evator surface. The eleva-
tor control forces are light,
and the pitch response
characteristics are excel-
lent and essentially identical
to those of the LS-3 and -3a.
The airspeed system pitot
was mounted high on the vertical fin of our test LS-4a, and its handbook
specified statics were located on the lower portion of the fuselage nose
sides, about 20 inches (.51 in) aft of the nose tip. The airspeed system
appeared to function satisfactorily, except that relatively large errors were
measured during our calibration at both the high and low speed regions of
the flight envelope. The airspeed system error data are shown in Figure 5.
At near stall the LS-4a’s air-
From top: elevator controls connect speed system indicated al-
automatically upon assembly; large most 4 knots less than ac-
hole on wing lower surface is water tual airspeed; whereas at
ballast drain, smaller hole is a drain to VNE it indicated approxi-
cope with any water leakage during mately nine knots more
flight; well-sized double panel than actual. Additional static
airbrakes provide excellent glidepath vents, intended for variom-
control and proved easy to operate. eters, were provided on the
aft fuselage sides 39 in. (1.0
in) forward of the vertical fin. It is very likely that these aft
fuselage static sources provide much truer reference pres-
sures than those at the fuselage nose sides, but we did not
check that during our flight calibration.
The roll control appeared to be very good and about equal
to that of the LS-3a model. + 45 degree to –45 degree rolls
required about 4.2 seconds to perform when flying at 48
knots CAS. The rudder control appeared to be adequate to
counter the aileron-induced adverse yaw. Good stall charac-
teristics were exhibited in both straight and turning flight.
The wing panels weighed about 146 lbs. (66.5 kg) each
and they are relatively easy to handle during assembly. The
handbook states that the water ballast bag capacity is 22.45
gallons (85 liters) for each wing, or a total of 44.9 gallons
(170 liters). Due to winter weather and lack of time, we did
not measure the LS-4a’s actual tank capacity nor make any
ballasted flight tests.
The main landing wheel is a relatively small 4 in.X4 in. unit
which appears to be similar to that used with the popular
Ventus sailplanes. An internal drum brake is actuated by
pressing forward at the rudder pedal base with one’s heels,
as with the LS-3’s. The wheel brake performed well during
our unballasted testing.
The airbrakes are dual paneled Schempp-Hirth type up-
per-wing-surface-only units that measured 55.3 inches (1.40 Top: adequate baggage storage compartment, access
in) long each. They are adequately powerful in flight and their to main wing pins. Bottom: permanently installed mir-
extension induces a desirable mild nose-down pitch to the rors are located behind wing spar to assist in manual
sailplane. connection of aileron and airbrake controls.
Climb performance in weak winter thermals was not very
 good during my early comparisons with local 15-meter sail-
planes. Even though they had comparable wing loadings, I
could not climb quite as well as I thought I should have until
the last test flight. For this flight I had installed the wing drag
monitor probe, and I discovered that I needed to keep the
airspeed two or three knots higher when thermaling than I
had been previously. Circling with only 35 to 40 degrees bank
at 46 knots CAS quickly drove the wing monitor to 23-27 kt
readings, which is well out of our LS-4a’s laminar bucket.
Increasing airspeed to 48 knots brought the wing monitor to
19-21 knot readings and much better climb performance was
observed.
In summary, the LS-4a appears to be a well built sailplane
with many excellent features. It has good performance com-
bined with fine control, handling and stability characteristics,
and excellent visibility for the pilot in a comfortable cockpit.
Thanks are due to Werner Birkelbach for making the LS4a
LS-4A cockpit. Instrument panel is fixed to cockpit floor, available for testing and to Darrel Watson, who assisted in
but glare shield rises with canopy. Handle on top left the logistics and flight-testing. Also to the Dallas Gliding As-
side is airbrake, below is cam-operated landing gear sociation and SSA members who kindly contributed to the
lever. The elevator trim release lever is on the forward towing fund, and to Skip Epp, who took the documentation
part of control stick, where most sailplane designers photos.
choose to locate their wheel brake control levers. REFERENCES
A. Johnson, RH., ‘A Flight Test Evaluation of the Ventus A”,
Soaring, Dec. 1981.
B. Johnson, RH., ‘A Flight Test Evaluation of the Nimbus 3”, Soaring, Dec. 1982.
C. Dirks, Wilhelm, “Wind Tunnel and Flight Test Results on Wing Sections Using Boundary Layer Control by
Turbulators”, Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on the Science and Technology of Low
Speed and Motorless Flight, Feb. 1984.
D. Johnson, RH., “At Last: An Instrument That Reads Drag!”, Soaring, Oct. 1983.
E. Flugleistungs und Eigenwertermittlung von Segelflugzeugen im Vergleichfflug, FZ Braunschweig, 1981.