http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/yeatesc/world.html

Charles Yeates wrote:
> http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/yeatesc/world.html

Gee, only about US $90K delivered. I'm not complaining, it's probably a
bargain compared to a new K-21 or DG-505. I just find it amusing that
some wonder why a lot a clubs stick with their 2-33s...

Marc

On Aug 14, 6:08 pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
> Charles Yeates wrote:
> >http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/yeatesc/world.html
>
> Gee, only about US $90K delivered. I'm not complaining, it's probably a
> bargain compared to a new K-21 or DG-505. I just find it amusing that
> some wonder why a lot a clubs stick with their 2-33s...
>
> Marc

A DG1000 is around $170,000, or $200,000 for one with a sustainer.
They're amazing gliders though. Can be used for basic training, full
aerobatics, or for beating Duo Discuses on cross-countries while the
front pilot has somewhere to put his stuff.

These PW6s look quite good value and make far more sense than the PW5
ever did. They're much cheaper than anything else in their class and
they make a good impression - a good, strong, modern ship. It might
take 10 years for a club to pay for one, but think of the benefits -
impresses visitors (=more members), can be used for XC training (=more
membership progression), generally a damn sight nicer to fly than a
tired old glider...


Dan

Dan G wrote:
> A DG1000 is around $170,000, or $200,000 for one with a sustainer.
> They're amazing gliders though. Can be used for basic training, full
> aerobatics, or for beating Duo Discuses on cross-countries while the
> front pilot has somewhere to put his stuff.

Which is roughly 10 to 15 times the cost of the typical club glider here
in the US. There are tradeoffs, many clubs have a lot of members who
rarely fly but are willing to pay the dues. If a club significantly
raises the dues to cover a new glider, they usually lose members in the
short term. If a club sells off a number of tired old gliders to raise
capital for a new one, they also run the risk of losing members due to
fewer available gliders to fly. Maybe the membership will rise to
higher levels later due to nice gliders, maybe it won't.

> These PW6s look quite good value and make far more sense than the PW5
> ever did. They're much cheaper than anything else in their class and
> they make a good impression - a good, strong, modern ship. It might
> take 10 years for a club to pay for one, but think of the benefits -
> impresses visitors (=more members), can be used for XC training (=more
> membership progression), generally a damn sight nicer to fly than a
> tired old glider...

Bank loans to clubs are rarely a viable option in the US, so in many
cases pulling this off is dependent on having members with deep pockets
willing to make long term low interest loans. I've seen this work in a
few cases, I've also seen cases where the "nice" glider ends up being an
expensive white elephant that drives members out of the club. Years ago
I left a club and formed a syndicate with other departing members to buy
a Duo, as we couldn't make the finances work inside the club.

Bay Area Soaring Associates here in the SF Bay area has managed to get
on DG-1000 in their fleet, and has a second one on order. Any members
care to comment on how you all managed to handle the finances?

Marc

"Charles Yeates" > wrote in message
...
>
> http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/yeatesc/world.html
>
The PW-6U is a great club glider. It's solid and easy to fly. I wish Jesow
and Charles Yeats a lot of success with it.

Bill Daniels

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
...
> Charles Yeates wrote:
>> http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/yeatesc/world.html
>
> Gee, only about US $90K delivered. I'm not complaining, it's probably a
> bargain compared to a new K-21 or DG-505. I just find it amusing that
> some wonder why a lot a clubs stick with their 2-33s...
>
> Marc

2-33's are cheap. Shooting yourself in the foot is also cheap. 2-33's are
cheap for a very good reason - they're terrible gliders.

2-33's have done untold damage to American soaring. Since 2-33's were
introduced as many as a hundred thousand potential glider pilots have walked
away because they were introduced to the sport with a ride in a 2-33. In
the long run, THAT was expensive.

When 2-33's were introduced in the late 1960's they cost $25,000. In todays
Dollars, that's $145,000. by comparison, the PW-6U is a screaming bargan.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels wrote:


> When 2-33's were introduced in the late 1960's they cost $25,000. In todays
> Dollars, that's $145,000. by comparison, the PW-6U is a screaming bargain.


That sounds high. I think I could have bought a new Cessna 180 during
the same period for that price. But if the 2-33 sold for $12,500 in
those days the PW-6U would still be a bargain.

Our club is about to acquire its second ASK-21. That's a good choice,
but they are few and far between, and they aren't new at a price a
club can afford.



Jack

At 17:24 14 August 2007, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>Charles Yeates wrote:
>> http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/yeatesc/world.html
>
>Gee, only about US $90K delivered. I'm not complaining,
>it's probably a
>bargain compared to a new K-21 or DG-505. I just find
>it amusing that
>some wonder why a lot a clubs stick with their 2-33s...
>
>Marc
>

At $90,000 it seems to make more sense to go for the
new Perkoz, since it's going into production---+9 to
-6 G's, 40/1 L/D, 17m/20m tips. Acro, X/C, training...Good
pilot reports on characteristics. SZD had 20 years
to work out the bugs in the Poochie, and the SZD 54
'seems' like a more promising ship for the price. I
guess time will tell. If I had the money, I would wait
and see myself.

Paul Hanson
"Do the usual, unusually well"--Len Niemi

Bill Daniels wrote:
> 2-33's are cheap. Shooting yourself in the foot is also cheap. 2-33's are
> cheap for a very good reason - they're terrible gliders.

I've flown some terrible gliders, 2-33s aren't terrible. They're cheap
because they're old and there are still a lot of them around, and fewer
people flying.

> 2-33's have done untold damage to American soaring. Since 2-33's were
> introduced as many as a hundred thousand potential glider pilots have walked
> away because they were introduced to the sport with a ride in a 2-33. In
> the long run, THAT was expensive.

Since the 2-33 was introduced a lot of people, like myself, learned to
fly in them, and otherwise might not have had the opportunity. I
started in the late 60 and early 70s, and from my perspective, without
the 2-33 there would be no American soaring today. I got to fly the
occasional K7 and K13 back then, and most ended up broken, with no local
knowledge on how to fix them. The 2-33 was far more robust, and could
be repaired by just about any shade tree A&P back then (and now).

> When 2-33's were introduced in the late 1960's they cost $25,000. In todays
> Dollars, that's $145,000. by comparison, the PW-6U is a screaming bargan.

Clubs don't have $145,000 2-33s today, they have $10,000 2-33s. Yes,
there are a few clubs that can afford upwards of $90,000 to get a shiny
new trainer, and I would encourage them to do so (after they get a shiny
new winch, of course), but most can't. Just look at what is being asked
for ratty old K21s, if you can find one. 2-33s aren't killing American
soaring, the unbalanced US economy and lack of manufacturing innovation
in the glider industry is killing it...

Marc

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Bay Area Soaring Associates here in the SF Bay area has managed to get
> on DG-1000 in their fleet, and has a second one on order. Any members
> care to comment on how you all managed to handle the finances?

We financed the first DG-1000 by selling off a Grob 103, using some of
our "new glider fund" savings, and largely by borrowing money from members.

We managed to pay the loans off faster than expected (having the ship
helped us get some members, I'm sure), so we have the second one on
order. Sadly, the Euro vs. Dollar makes the second one quite a bit more
expensive than the first, which we bought from Charlie Hayes.

Someday we need to replace our other Grob 103. Ideally, we'd get an
ASK-21, but they're REALLY hard to find used and nearly the same cost as
a DG-505 when bought new.

It'll be interesting to see where we end up...

Jeremy (a BASA member)

I must disagree, respectably, with your opinion Mark.

You wont find a 2-33 in a German club, you will find new shiny ships and LOTS of new pilots. Do you get that in the US? Now, are memberships rising or falling in the US? And in Germany? Ahhhhh, see a link?

I used to say "how can we afford that?" as well, until some wit pointed out that we couldnt afford NOT to go with expensive gliders.
Build it and they will come.
Mr Daniels is right on the money, youngsters now have a new phone every 2 years, a new car every 3 years, a mortgage no-one can really afford, 3 ipods, a PDA, $250 sunglasses and a wardrobe of jeans the cost of which would support a small african country.

Do you honestly think they will be enticed into gliding if offered an antique 2-33?

New Pooch, PW-6, ASK or whichever, they will all be better than a tin or fabric floater for the bling factor alone.



Bagger

When buying new, what lead you to get a second DG-1000 rather than
diversifying by getting a Duo Discus?




Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> Marc Ramsey wrote:
>> Bay Area Soaring Associates here in the SF Bay area has managed to get
>> on DG-1000 in their fleet, and has a second one on order. Any members
>> care to comment on how you all managed to handle the finances?
>
> We financed the first DG-1000 by selling off a Grob 103, using some of
> our "new glider fund" savings, and largely by borrowing money from members.
>
> We managed to pay the loans off faster than expected (having the ship
> helped us get some members, I'm sure), so we have the second one on
> order. Sadly, the Euro vs. Dollar makes the second one quite a bit more
> expensive than the first, which we bought from Charlie Hayes.
>
> Someday we need to replace our other Grob 103. Ideally, we'd get an
> ASK-21, but they're REALLY hard to find used and nearly the same cost as
> a DG-505 when bought new.
>
> It'll be interesting to see where we end up...
>
> Jeremy (a BASA member)

bagmaker wrote:
> I must disagree, respectably, with your opinion Mark.
>
> You wont find a 2-33 in a German club, you will find new shiny ships
> and LOTS of new pilots. Do you get that in the US? Now, are memberships
> rising or falling in the US? And in Germany? Ahhhhh, see a link?

Are memberships really rising in Germany? Do you have numbers? If they
are, that would be different from the trend worldwide.

Do you suppose the use of low-cost winch launches might explain a lot of
the difference, along with the much higher cost of powered flight, and
*very* easy access to glider operations because the country is so compact?

So, at the moment, I don't see the link, because these other differences
seem important. In our club, it wasn't the lack of "bling" (we had an
old Blanik) that kept our membership down, it was the lack of
instructors and towpilots. If we had enough of those, we could have
easily doubled our membership and been able to afford the fiberglass two
seater.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

On Aug 15, 5:48 am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Are memberships really rising in Germany? Do you have numbers? If they
> are, that would be different from the trend worldwide.

I do have numbers, thanks to John Roake, and membership in Germany is
actually collapsing faster than anywhere in the world - (32,229
members in 2006 vs 37,624 in 1996, continuous decline). I have no idea
why (does anyone else know?).

Low-cost winching obviously makes gliding much more affordable. I'm
still not aero-tow solo as there simply isn't any point. I get to 75%
the height of an standard aerotow on the winch and never fail to "get
away" - so why pay five times as much to be slowly dragged into the
sky by an expensive and noisy power plane (which I'm sure the airfield
neighbours love)? But if you don't have a winch, it's not just a case
of getting one and using it - very thorough flight training is needed
to use it safely, and I'm not sure how a club that lacks that
expertise could just go and get it.

Eric also mentions a lack of instructors. That's a critical problem in
many clubs, as active instructor numbers seems to be dropping faster
than membership overall. One of the many points a club may need to put
in order before it considers a marketing blitz - what are _you_ doing
to train and retain new instructors?

Quickly RE DG1000 vs Duo - a club near me has also bought a second
DG1000 rather than a Duo too. Why? Because the DG1000 is a far better
ship. Unlike the Duo it is suitable for pre-solo training to
comfortably out-running Duos on XC. It's a stronger glider with a far
better design (people may laugh at the enormous landing gear but wait
until a pupil gives you a heavy landing, or the glider lands out in
crop. Then you'll know why DG designed it). I wouldn't bother
replacing a G103 though. If it's tatty get it done up for a tiny
fraction of the cost of a new aircraft. It's still a 1:33 glider and
tough as nails.

I personally believe modern GRP trainers may well be worth it.
Membership costs seem to be surprisingly inelastic, and I suspect many
potential members would rather payer somewhat higher fees in return
for *far* better gliders. Cheap isn't always best. That said I think
the K13 is the perfect trainer and if I ran a club with a fleet of
those, I'd just repaint them and keep them, then add a K21 or G103 for
XC training (consider that a mid-performance glider may be preferable
for early XC training, as it's unlikely that your new early XC pilots
will have access to gliders with any better performance!).


Dan

On Aug 15, 9:29 am, Dan G > wrote:
> That said I think
> the K13 is the perfect trainer and if I ran a club with a fleet of
> those, I'd just repaint them and keep them, then add a K21 or G103 for
> XC training

....and if you do add an expensive high-performance glider, set your
per-minute flying fees to be identical for all gliders - from your Duo
or DG to you 13s or 33s. Why? Because I've just remembered that my own
club, which happens to have exactly the fleet I've outlined above
(three K13s and a K21), also has a brand new Duo X on long-term loan,
which I'd forgotten about. AFAIK it's flown once(!!!) this year, and
that was only by a visiting pilot - the per-minute charge is more than
double than the other four two-place gliders. No-one I've spoken to
has the slightest interest in flying it at that cost so it just sits
there.

The club I mentioned that has just bought a second DG1000 charges the
same fee for their 13s, 21s and the two 1000s. Guess what? The DG1000s
are a regular sight in the skies all around the local area and beyond,
as they are used daily. In fact they're often first out of the hangar,
make a tremendous impression on trial flight folks (if you've ever
flown in the front seat of a DG, you'll know why - the vast view is
stunning!) and more often than not they go XC, exactly what they were
designed for. Bizarrely, that club is now actually investigating
changing the pricing structure, even though they originally introduced
the flat rate for exactly the reasons I've given, and are not
struggling to pay the loans on the new gliders. I hope they see sense!


Dan

On Aug 14, 2:55 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Charles Yeates wrote:
> >>http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/yeatesc/world.html
>
> > Gee, only about US $90K delivered. I'm not complaining, it's probably a
> > bargain compared to a new K-21 or DG-505. I just find it amusing that
> > some wonder why a lot a clubs stick with their 2-33s...
>
> > Marc
>
> 2-33's are cheap. Shooting yourself in the foot is also cheap. 2-33's are
> cheap for a very good reason - they're terrible gliders.
>
> 2-33's have done untold damage to American soaring. Since 2-33's were
> introduced as many as a hundred thousand potential glider pilots have walked
> away because they were introduced to the sport with a ride in a 2-33. In
> the long run, THAT was expensive.
>
> When 2-33's were introduced in the late 1960's they cost $25,000. In todays
> Dollars, that's $145,000. by comparison, the PW-6U is a screaming bargan.
>
> Bill Daniels


Bill obviously lives in a different world of gliding than we do in my
club.
Our gliders have to live outside because we don't have a hanger.
Our 2-33's are busy all day most days while the '21 flies much less.
Almost 1/4 of our membership are juniors who could never afford to fly
if we had to support $100,000 2 seaters.
People love to ride in our 2-33's. One out of 4 rides turns into an
introductory training package. Doen't sound like we are scaring them
off.
The missing point is that it is not what you fly- it is that you fly.
There is room in our sport for many approaches without putting down
the other guy.
A little research would show the 2-33 was introduced in about 1972 and
likely is only second in our active fleet to 1-26's.
I think they have served us well.
UH

On 15 Aug, 09:29, Dan G > wrote:

> I personally believe modern GRP trainers may well be worth it.

I used to fly at Border GC in Northumberland. When I started there,
twelve years ago, they had two Bocians, a Pirat and 75 members. Now
they have a K21, an Alliance, a Grob Acro, a Club Astir, a Pirat ...
and 180+ members.

However, I think it would be too simplistic to say that the gliders
have brought the members. It's just as true that the members have paid
for the gliders ... moving from a 37 acre airfield to a 200 acre one
has probably helped too!

Now I fly from a club with a Ka-2, various private single seaters ...
and 8 members.

Ian

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:48:50 GMT, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:

>
>Are memberships really rising in Germany? Do you have numbers? If they
>are, that would be different from the trend worldwide.

They are not (although there are exceptions - membership in my club is
rising steadily and has increased 30% from 1986 when I started
gliding) - but the average age of a German glider pilot is *young* -
you see many, many young, motivated pilots on German (or, rather,
European) airfields who can only affored gliding due to the very low
costs compared to the US.


>Do you suppose the use of low-cost winch launches might explain a lot of
>the difference, along with the much higher cost of powered flight, and
>*very* easy access to glider operations because the country is so compact?

It's definitely the winch launch.


Bye
Andreas

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Aug 14, 2:55 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > Charles Yeates wrote:
>> >>http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/yeatesc/world.html
>>
>> > Gee, only about US $90K delivered. I'm not complaining, it's probably
>> > a
>> > bargain compared to a new K-21 or DG-505. I just find it amusing that
>> > some wonder why a lot a clubs stick with their 2-33s...
>>
>> > Marc
>>
>> 2-33's are cheap. Shooting yourself in the foot is also cheap. 2-33's
>> are
>> cheap for a very good reason - they're terrible gliders.
>>
>> 2-33's have done untold damage to American soaring. Since 2-33's were
>> introduced as many as a hundred thousand potential glider pilots have
>> walked
>> away because they were introduced to the sport with a ride in a 2-33. In
>> the long run, THAT was expensive.
>>
>> When 2-33's were introduced in the late 1960's they cost $25,000. In
>> todays
>> Dollars, that's $145,000. by comparison, the PW-6U is a screaming
>> bargan.
>>
>> Bill Daniels
>
>
> Bill obviously lives in a different world of gliding than we do in my
> club.
> Our gliders have to live outside because we don't have a hanger.
> Our 2-33's are busy all day most days while the '21 flies much less.
> Almost 1/4 of our membership are juniors who could never afford to fly
> if we had to support $100,000 2 seaters.
> People love to ride in our 2-33's. One out of 4 rides turns into an
> introductory training package. Doen't sound like we are scaring them
> off.
> The missing point is that it is not what you fly- it is that you fly.
> There is room in our sport for many approaches without putting down
> the other guy.
> A little research would show the 2-33 was introduced in about 1972 and
> likely is only second in our active fleet to 1-26's.
> I think they have served us well.
> UH

I think it's you who's living in the past. I also don't think you are
supporting youth. I think you have conned a bunch of people into
suppoprting a tow plane. The 2-33 excells at that - it falls out of the sky
so it needs a lot of tows. BTW, can't you use your real name?

BTW, the first customer 2-33 I saw was in use in 1967 in Southern
California. My logbook shows I instructed in them in 1970 so your 1972 date
is bogus.

Bill Daniels

"Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
:

>
> I think it's you who's living in the past. I also don't think you are
> supporting youth. I think you have conned a bunch of people into
> suppoprting a tow plane. The 2-33 excells at that - it falls out of the sky
> so it needs a lot of tows. BTW, can't you use your real name?
>
<snip>

> Bill Daniels




Oh, my, Mr. Daniels! Are you ever in for a walloping! Before this is
over, I bet you will wish you had just slapped your grandmother instead
of posting this!



I am going to just sit back and watch!!!!



Larry

01 "zero one"

>I do have numbers, thanks to John Roake, and membership
>in Germany
>is actually collapsing faster than anywhere in the
>world - (32,229
>members in 2006 vs 37,624 in 1996, continuous decline).
>I have no
>idea why (does anyone else know?).

Much of that decline could be explained by demographics.
The German
population is getting older because of a very low birth
rate and many of
their well educated youth are leaving for jobs in lower
tax rate countries.

I Googled German demographics and found this article
from 2006. This
is a problem throughout Europe. Somewhere around 56%
of the
specialist doctors in England are from Asia and the
Middle East because
most of the British trained doctors live and work in
the US.

'The exodus of Germans being lured away from home is
greater today
than at any time since statisticians began collecting
figures about
population movements in the 1950s.

Last year, for the first time since 1968, more people
left Germany than
arrived, according to Destatis, the federal statistical
office. It estimates
that 144,815 Germans left the country last year because
of high
unemployment, better opportunities or, in some cases,
tax.''

German demographers were shocked in 1987 when the latest
census put
the population at 82.4m – 1.3m lower than projected.
But a more
unpleasant surprise could be in store for Germans as
work for the next
census gets under way this week. The previous emigration
record of
1956 was breached in 1994 and, after several years
of decline, the
outflow began rising again in 2001, and continued to
rise up to 2004,
although 2005’s figure of 144,815 was slightly down
on the year before.

“There has definitely been an increase [in German emigration]
over the
past two to three years,” said Christina Busch at the
Raphael-Werke, an
organisation that counsels would-be emigrants. “What
worries me is that
99.9 per cent of those I see have qualifications. Many
have children.
Some even have good jobs. And most want a clean break
– they do not
intend to come back.”

Architects, engineers, lorry drivers, scientists and
social workers are
leaving in droves, according to figures. The outflow
of doctors towards
Scandinavia is such that the medical faculty of Erlangen
University
recently started offering Swedish courses to its students.'

'For former East Germany, the outlook is particularly
grim. Another IAB
study estimates the region’s population will drop from
15m to 9m by
2050.'

Earlier, Hank Nixon wrote:

> A little research would show the 2-33 was introduced in about 1972...

Heh, and a little more research would show that the 2-33 actually
dates to five years earlier, in 1967.

The original 2-33 was certificated on 10 Feb 1967, followed by the
2-33A on 7 March 1968 and the kit version 2-33AK on 19 April 1973.
When I worked at Sky Sailing in the early 1980s our 2-33 fleet had
several pre-A models in it, so there was definitely a substantial
number built prior to the Feb 1968 A-model introduction.

Here's the TCDS in .pdf from faa.gov:

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/84b126f9575b545d85256721004ee3d9/$FILE/G2ea.PDF

(Would you like TLAs with that? ;)

Personally, I like the 2-33 as a basic trainer because its simple and
rugged, with lots and lots of crash-protection iron. Bill has a point
that it is a distinctly unsexy aircraft. However, in my experience
rugged unsexy trainers outperform broken trainers on most days of the
week.

Thanks, Bob K.

Bill Daniels wrote:
>
> BTW, the first customer 2-33 I saw was in use in 1967 in Southern
> California. My logbook shows I instructed in them in 1970 so your 1972 date
> is bogus.

A lot of us think UH is his real name! But if you don't know him real
well, he also answers to the more formal "Uncle Hank".

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

On Aug 15, 11:57 pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> Personally, I like the 2-33 as a basic trainer because its simple and
> rugged, with lots and lots of crash-protection iron. Bill has a point
> that it is a distinctly unsexy aircraft. However, in my experience
> rugged unsexy trainers outperform broken trainers on most days of the
> week.

TBH, if you're breaking gliders, you're doing something wrong, and
fixing that should be a higher priority than what kind of gliders to
use :-).

I'd disagree that older gliders are tougher than GRP. The K21 is
immensely strong with a high G rating - much higher than the K13, for
example - and the DG1000 is stronger still (I don't know about the
PW6U though). Both the DG and the K21 have cockpits designed for crash
protection with areas designed to maintain their shape in a crash
(double-wall fuselage, strong canopy frames, roll-over bar) and other
parts that deform to absorb energy - in an older steel-framed glider,
you become the energy absorbing part. That's not good.

Modern GRP gliders tend to have bigger main wheels with good shock
mounting and also nose wheels, which absorb far more energy in a heavy
landing than a nose skid does. That can save your life and certainly
your ability to walk.

On the other hand, repairs to GRP generally cost more than fixing
wood, metal and fabric. But as I said at the top, if you're having to
fix broken gliders, you're doing something wrong.


Dan

[QUOTE=Dan G;545786]On Aug 15, 5:48 am, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Are memberships really rising in Germany? Do you have numbers? If they
are, that would be different from the trend worldwide.

I do have numbers, thanks to John Roake, and membership in Germany is
actually collapsing faster than anywhere in the world - (32,229
members in 2006 vs 37,624 in 1996, continuous decline). I have no idea
why (does anyone else know?).

Thankyou, Dan, I stand corrected.

No, I dont know either, its a disaster.

I fear the Germans also have a high rate of shiny vs. old tin/fabric gliders in their clubs, being the country of origin of most gliders built, thus rendering many of my other rants completely bunk also.

But hey, cant deny the enthusiasm!

Bagger

>The missing point is that it is not what you fly- it is that you fly.

I cannot really image that new shiny glas ships make all that
difference. When I took up gliding with 15 years of age I was trained
on the K13 and soon flew Ka8 and Ka6. I always thought these were
beautiful gliders and a lot of fun to fly.

In my opinion the main problem of declining numbers of glider pilots
in germany is that society has changed over the past 25 years. People
used to have comfortable jobs with a lot of spare time. They could
afford to support a family and still put a lot of time into gliding
clubs. Now jobs are more demanding and time consuming. People tend to
have more money but less time to spend it. This seriously affects the
structure of many german gliding clubs which depend on the time and
commitment of their members to keep operating at low costs. Nowadays
many people can more easily afford to get a brand new high performance
self launcher than putting a lot of time into the club. In the long
run I think we are going from a commitment supported structure to a
cash and carry service oriented structure. I find this sad because all
those 14-year-olds of the future won't be able to afford gliding
anymore.

Many german clubs have been building and improving their fleet for 50
years. By good maintenance and care, these fleets hardly loose value
and upgrading to the next better model isn't such a big step to take.
I think that is why you find so many nice fleets over here. I don't
really see how you want to go from 2-33 to DG1000 in just one step.

One of the main reasons many german clubs are trading their K13s for
fiberglass trainers is not that they are more attractive to new
members but because of their easier maintainance. Fibreglass ships
usually just need a bit of polishing while a wooden glider needs a
major overhaul every 10 - 15years. With decreasing numbers of members
this is becoming increasingly difficult to accomplish. Metal gliders
are not as popular because there is far less knowledge of how to
maintain and repair them;-)

On Aug 15, 5:25 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 14, 2:55 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> >> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > Charles Yeates wrote:
> >> >>http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/yeatesc/world.html
>
> >> > Gee, only about US $90K delivered. I'm not complaining, it's probably
> >> > a
> >> > bargain compared to a new K-21 or DG-505. I just find it amusing that
> >> > some wonder why a lot a clubs stick with their 2-33s...
>
> >> > Marc
>
> >> 2-33's are cheap. Shooting yourself in the foot is also cheap. 2-33's
> >> are
> >> cheap for a very good reason - they're terrible gliders.
>
> >> 2-33's have done untold damage to American soaring. Since 2-33's were
> >> introduced as many as a hundred thousand potential glider pilots have
> >> walked
> >> away because they were introduced to the sport with a ride in a 2-33. In
> >> the long run, THAT was expensive.
>
> >> When 2-33's were introduced in the late 1960's they cost $25,000. In
> >> todays
> >> Dollars, that's $145,000. by comparison, the PW-6U is a screaming
> >> bargan.
>
> >> Bill Daniels
>
> > Bill obviously lives in a different world of gliding than we do in my
> > club.
> > Our gliders have to live outside because we don't have a hanger.
> > Our 2-33's are busy all day most days while the '21 flies much less.
> > Almost 1/4 of our membership are juniors who could never afford to fly
> > if we had to support $100,000 2 seaters.
> > People love to ride in our 2-33's. One out of 4 rides turns into an
> > introductory training package. Doen't sound like we are scaring them
> > off.
> > The missing point is that it is not what you fly- it is that you fly.
> > There is room in our sport for many approaches without putting down
> > the other guy.
> > A little research would show the 2-33 was introduced in about 1972 and
> > likely is only second in our active fleet to 1-26's.
> > I think they have served us well.
> > UH
>
> I think it's you who's living in the past. I also don't think you are
> supporting youth. I think you have conned a bunch of people into
> suppoprting a tow plane. The 2-33 excells at that - it falls out of the sky
> so it needs a lot of tows. BTW, can't you use your real name?
>
> BTW, the first customer 2-33 I saw was in use in 1967 in Southern
> California. My logbook shows I instructed in them in 1970 so your 1972 date
> is bogus.
>
> Bill Daniels- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I stand properly corrected on introduction of 2-33.
Not hiding behind the name. UH has been Hank Nixon for more than 30
years and on this site fairly regularly.
As to supporting youth, over my career I and my wife have personally
provided nmore than 30 cost free scholarships to young people. I have
soloed about 25 on their 14th birthday and at least 4 times that many
in their mid teens.
Many of these are now aviation professionals.
I provide a glider to our club juniors at no cost to them except they
keep it clean.
Founding member of a club that has support of youth soaring as on of
its purposes in our bylaws.
Founded our local club out of my wife's and my pocket.
Tim Mara did pretty much the same thing at his club.
Others I don't know have done the same thing
Will wait and see if this sounds like the profile of a con man.
2-33's stay up at our site pretty much anytime the other ships stay
up. They just don't go cross country on less than 2 kt climbs.
Your zeal to promote ground launching is a good thing. There is a lot
of opportunity for this to help grow soaring where sites permit. Many
are smaller multiple use sites like public airports where it simply
won't work. It vey much depends on where you are.
True we could go buy some land in the lower Hudson valley of NY and
set up a winching operation.
Let's examine the tradeoffs:
Sell 2 tugs and raise about $75K
Buy enough land for winching gliderport- About $1.5MM-2MM
No more Friday afternoon tows where only the tow pilot has to show up
at lunch time.
Oh Yea- forgot. Sell the 2-33's for 24 K and go buy a couple 21's for
200K.
maybe this sounds like a winner to you but it makes less than no sense
to me.
As I said in my earlier comment, there are many ways to provide
soaring and they all should be used where they apply best.
The 15 year old girl that did her first 2 hr soaring flight last
weekend in my 1-26 off a $13 tow did not think she was getting taken
by a con man.
Your apology accepted in advance.
UH- You know who this is.

On Aug 15, 5:42 pm, "01-- Zero One" > wrote:
> "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
>
> :
>
>
>
> > I think it's you who's living in the past. I also don't think you are
> > supporting youth. I think you have conned a bunch of people into
> > suppoprting a tow plane. The 2-33 excells at that - it falls out of the sky
> > so it needs a lot of tows. BTW, can't you use your real name?
>
> <snip>
>
> > Bill Daniels
>
> Oh, my, Mr. Daniels! Are you ever in for a walloping! Before this is
> over, I bet you will wish you had just slapped your grandmother instead
> of posting this!
>
> I am going to just sit back and watch!!!!
>
> Larry
>
> 01 "zero one"

Now Larry, whatever could you mean by that comment :-)

Awww hell, I'll rise to the bait.

Bill, either you're intentionally playing dumb, or it's not an act.
Regardless, you ought to think before you criticize someone like
Hank. There's certainly room for disagreeing with his approach, but
you better be careful how you do it. Considering he (and a couple
of others from his club) have managed to keep alive an operation alive
and growing at Middletown for the better part of 30 years on the backs
of Schweizer Iron suggests that there's more than one way to skin this
cat.

I'll throw out the following as the keys to attracting new blood in
descending priority order from my experience as a past club president,
instructor, and SSA Governor:

1. First impressions. When someone shows up for their initial
ride, does it feel like the club/ FBO is excited to see them or are
they treated like a minor annoyance? Does he/she leave with an info
pack and next steps (e.g. the 3 flight introductory instruction
pack).
2. Operations. Does the club/FBO accomodate busy schedules and
respect the time that people are committing? Are the Instructors
professional and caring?
3. Challenge. Does the club/FBO help lay out a roadmap that goes
well beyond solo?
4. Hassle factor. Is it fun to come to the club/FBO or do you stand
a good chance at being yelled at for no good reason?
5. Socializing. Is there a reason to hang out before/after flying
or even on non-flying days?
6. Equipment. Is there enough of it and does it provide for some
logical progression beyond solo (say up to Gold badge) .

I'm not saying that an all glass fleet isn't nice to have or that it
doesn't contribute to the overall experience (it does). But, many
operations, at least in the US, have significant limitations based on
where they fly, the availability of hangar space, etc.

Also, wrt the winch vs. towplane, I think there's no question that
many of us would like to do more winching and less aero-towing.
However, one of the big problems is the availability of glider-only or
winch-friendly airfields. Take the NY/NJ area where I fly. Every
one of the glider operations works from busy GA airports with mixed
traffic. Imagine trying to fit in Winch launches while five 1-52s
try to shoot touch and goes in the pattern. Even if we proposed it
at our field, I can guarantee the airport manager would laugh himself
silly right before slamming the door behind us (and probably with good
reason).

As far as turning off the youth, that hasn't been our experience.
When we strap a 15 year old in the front seat of a 2-33, he/she can't
see the tube and steel behind him/her. It's just plexiglass and an
instrument panel. What does turn them off is crotchety old-timers
yelling at them for minor infractions and/or being the only kid among
a bunch of septegenarians.

Anyway, there's nothing here that hasn't been said before. However,
I'll just close by saying that anyone who thinks it's the gliders that
are holding back growth are barking up the wrong tree.

Erik Mann
LS8-18 P3 (started in a 2-22 btw)

I think things have become a bit mixed up. *I* advocate that the
demographic with the most potential to become long-term glider pilots
are those at or over around 45-50, who have lots of money and fewer
committments than in previous years. To catch them, you'll need a nice
fleet - e.g. PW6Us. There's other benefits to having a nice fleet -
any of your gliders are suitable for XC training, they're easier to
look after, and they're a lot safer.

If you're aiming for kids, you need to be cheap. As said, 2-33s etc.
make a lot of sense for that. Do not expect many of them to become
long-term glider pilots. Is that what your club wants? A high turn-
over of young members? Is that a sustainable way to grow a club? (Last
question not rhetorical - it may well work.)

I'd suggest going the shiny fleet route and use some of the higher
fees required to subsidise U25 flying to point of being dirt (i.e., at
cost) cheap. There, best of both worlds.

BTW Erik that's a magnificent list. Number 4 is one I'd stress in
particular - as soon as someone gets shirty with someone else during
what's a supposed to be a recreational activity, they're off, and will
never be seen again.


Dan

"alex8735" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> >The missing point is that it is not what you fly- it is that you fly.
>
> I cannot really image that new shiny glas ships make all that
> difference. When I took up gliding with 15 years of age I was trained
> on the K13 and soon flew Ka8 and Ka6. I always thought these were
> beautiful gliders and a lot of fun to fly.

Yes, these are beautiful gliders and fun to fly. If only they had become
popular in the US. The 2-33 isn't even remotely in their league.

I suspect many in this discussion haven't even been in the front seat of a
2-33 in years - if ever. If you haven't, you need to go sit in one. The
first thing you will notice is that you are very uncomfortable. Then you
will notice that unless you have legs like straws you won't have full
aileron movement - in fact, you may have less than half. If you continue to
experiment with various control positions you will find something really
startling. If the spoiler control is positioned at 50%, where it would be
in a normal approach, your left leg will be trapped between the stick and
spoiler control blocking all left aileron. In fact, the stick will actually
strike the spoiler handle if you somehow remove your leg. If your arms are
not average or longer, you will find full down elevator is unavailable.
These are serious deficiencies and would most likely make the 2-33
impossible to certificate under current FAR 23 or JAR 22 rules.

Now get in the back seat - if you can. You will be even more uncomfortable
with the seat to back angle less than 90 degrees. Imagine an average size
student in the front seat blocking your view of the instruments. (For those
who haven't seen a 2-33, there are no instruments in the back seat.) Now
look up and to the side and see the wings blocking your view into a turn.
Ask yourself if you would be comfortable in a gaggle with a new student in
the front seat. Ask yourself if you would be willing to sit here for 8
hours instructing. Would you ask anyone else to do so?

Now get out - if you can. Inspect the glider carefully. Keep in mind that
these are very old gliders which have led a hard life. Look at the rusty
screen door springs holding the rudder pedals forward. If one of these
breaks, which they do regularly, the affected pedal will flop flat to the
floor where most pilots can't get it back into place while flying. Ask if
you would be comfortable with your child in the air with a missing rudder
pedal.

Pay particular attention to the upper surface of the "D"-tube skin. You
may well find diagonal cracks in the metal skin or patches where someone
else found cracks - these are metal fatigue. Look at the skins around the
inboard ends of the ailerons for cracks - another favorite place for fatigue
cracks. If there are patches, ask if anyone inspected the internal wing
structure for more cracks.

Now place your hand on the fin leading edge and lightly push aft. Be
prepared for the base of the fin leading edge to separate from the
fuselage. The single 3/16" bolt, or the thin aluminum tab that holds the
fin LE has broken on many 2-33's and has not been caught for many annual
inspections.

Notice I didn't ask anyone to actually fly the thing. That would be over
the top.

Bill Daniels

I know "UH" or Uncle Hank (Nixon) well enough to know that he is not only a
great sponsor of youth in soaring but a supporter of soaring in all aspects.
Hank does and has supported s