We are looking for a good 2-33, preferably in the midwest. If you know
of one, please contact me.

Thanks!

Kurt Strong

wrote:
> We are looking for a good 2-33, preferably in the midwest. If you know
> of one, please contact me.
>
> Thanks!

I can understand *needing* a 2-33. Sounds reasonable. But *wanting*
one. Hmmm
;-)


Shawn

P.S. Look here:
http://www.wingsandwheels.com/want_ads.htm
if you haven't yet.

Shawn schrieb:
> wrote:
>
>> We are looking for a good 2-33, preferably in the midwest. If you know
>> of one, please contact me.
>>
>> Thanks!
>
>
> I can understand *needing* a 2-33. Sounds reasonable. But *wanting*
> one. Hmmm
> ;-)

You could go on by trying to find a use for "good" in the same sentence with
"2-33" :)

Sorry... ;-)

Good luck anyway and greetings from Germany!
(i have made my 10 flights in a 2-33, including some pumpkin-dropping!)

Markus

Not every operation has unlimited funds to buy a Duo Discus, or other
supership. What we need is a safe, strong, reliable ship that will
deliver a return on its investment, and keep us economically viable and
in operation. (Isn't that the first priority???) Is it the ship I
would choose to fly on a good XC day, or as a personal fun ship? Nope.
But, would I choose it to train beginning pilots, day in and day out,
while not breaking the bank? Yup. Thank you Schweizer.

Kurt Strong
Beloit, WI

wrote:
> Not every operation has unlimited funds to buy a Duo Discus, or other
> supership. What we need is a safe, strong, reliable ship that will
> deliver a return on its investment, and keep us economically viable and
> in operation. (Isn't that the first priority???) Is it the ship I
> would choose to fly on a good XC day, or as a personal fun ship? Nope.
> But, would I choose it to train beginning pilots, day in and day out,
> while not breaking the bank? Yup. Thank you Schweizer.
>
> Kurt Strong
> Beloit, WI

Or you could try a Ka7 for less money, yet better performance and
handling.

2c

On 22 Jun 2005 17:56:42 -0700, "Kevin Christner"
> wrote:

>
>
wrote:
>> Not every operation has unlimited funds to buy a Duo Discus, or other
>> supership. What we need is a safe, strong, reliable ship that will
>> deliver a return on its investment, and keep us economically viable and
>> in operation. (Isn't that the first priority???) Is it the ship I
>> would choose to fly on a good XC day, or as a personal fun ship? Nope.
>> But, would I choose it to train beginning pilots, day in and day out,
>> while not breaking the bank? Yup. Thank you Schweizer.
>>
>> Kurt Strong
>> Beloit, WI
>
>Or you could try a Ka7 for less money, yet better performance and
>handling.
>
>2c

But much worse visibility from the backseat.

Well as my good friend (and former Schweizer pilot) Jim Short reminds
me...no one has been killed (yet...knock on wood) in a 2-33. Ugly,
flies like a Chevy half-ton pick-up, cross controlled to thermal, can't
get a date in one, but indestructible...its the JEEP of the fleet.
Plus, what other glider can you get your dog airborne in????


wrote:
> Not every operation has unlimited funds to buy a Duo Discus, or other
> supership. What we need is a safe, strong, reliable ship that will
> deliver a return on its investment, and keep us economically viable and
> in operation. (Isn't that the first priority???) Is it the ship I
> would choose to fly on a good XC day, or as a personal fun ship? Nope.
> But, would I choose it to train beginning pilots, day in and day out,
> while not breaking the bank? Yup. Thank you Schweizer.
>
> Kurt Strong
> Beloit, WI

Waz wrote:
> Well as my good friend (and former Schweizer pilot) Jim Short reminds
> me...no one has been killed (yet...knock on wood) in a 2-33. Ugly,
> flies like a Chevy half-ton pick-up, cross controlled to thermal, can't
> get a date in one, but indestructible...its the JEEP of the fleet.
> Plus, what other glider can you get your dog airborne in????

http://tinyurl.com/bgokd



>>Not every operation has unlimited funds to buy a Duo Discus, or other
>>supership. What we need is a safe, strong, reliable ship that will
>>deliver a return on its investment, and keep us economically viable and
>>in operation. (Isn't that the first priority???) Is it the ship I
>>would choose to fly on a good XC day, or as a personal fun ship? Nope.
>> But, would I choose it to train beginning pilots, day in and day out,
>>while not breaking the bank? Yup. Thank you Schweizer.

Want a Duo, need a 2-33. As I said, sounds reasonable.

BTW interesting discussion on Glider Forum "If you could help design a
trainer what would it be like?".

Shawn

Kevin Christner wrote:

>
>
> wrote:
>> Not every operation has unlimited funds to buy a Duo Discus, or other
>> supership. What we need is a safe, strong, reliable ship that will
>> deliver a return on its investment, and keep us economically viable and
>> in operation. (Isn't that the first priority???) Is it the ship I
>> would choose to fly on a good XC day, or as a personal fun ship? Nope.
>> But, would I choose it to train beginning pilots, day in and day out,
>> while not breaking the bank? Yup. Thank you Schweizer.
>>
>> Kurt Strong
>> Beloit, WI
>
> Or you could try a Ka7 for less money, yet better performance and
> handling.
>
> 2c
Only if the wings have been rebuilt in the recent past.

See the K series glue thread.

Frank

Myth.

There have been at least 7 fatalities in the 2-33, including multiples and
one purported suicide.

Frank

Waz wrote:

> Well as my good friend (and former Schweizer pilot) Jim Short reminds
> me...no one has been killed (yet...knock on wood) in a 2-33. Ugly,
> flies like a Chevy half-ton pick-up, cross controlled to thermal, can't
> get a date in one, but indestructible...its the JEEP of the fleet.
> Plus, what other glider can you get your dog airborne in????
>
>
> wrote:
>> Not every operation has unlimited funds to buy a Duo Discus, or other
>> supership. What we need is a safe, strong, reliable ship that will
>> deliver a return on its investment, and keep us economically viable and
>> in operation. (Isn't that the first priority???) Is it the ship I
>> would choose to fly on a good XC day, or as a personal fun ship? Nope.
>> But, would I choose it to train beginning pilots, day in and day out,
>> while not breaking the bank? Yup. Thank you Schweizer.
>>
>> Kurt Strong
>> Beloit, WI

F.L. Whiteley wrote:
> Myth.
>
> There have been at least 7 fatalities in the 2-33, including multiples and
> one purported suicide.

Cite(s)?


Jack

Searched Schweizer Gliders 6/26/2005 to 1/1/1968 on the NTSB database.

Fatal 2-33

6/10/78
4/1/77
10/6/75
7/2/72 (2 fatals)
12/12/71

Chip F.

chipsoars wrote:

> Searched Schweizer Gliders 6/26/2005 to 1/1/1968 on the NTSB database.
>
> Fatal 2-33
>
> 06/10/78 http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=40460&key=0
> 04/01/77 http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=56645&key=0
> 10/06/75 http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=50592&key=0
> 07/02/72 http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=65574&key=0 (2 fatals)
> 12/12/71 http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=63260&key=0


Cites need URL's. I added them.

Previous searchs on "2-33" returned zero fatals, possibly because of the
haphazard way in which the aircraft model designation is entered into
earlier FAA/NTSB records. The info can be laboriously picked out of 67
returned records, after searching for "glider", "Schweizer", and "fatal", as
'chipsoars' showed.

Another myth dispelled, but it doesn't mean that the 2-33 is not a useful
and relatively safe trainer.

On a search for "glider" and "fatal", 259 records are returned. Only five in
2-33's, and none of those since 1978, is very good for a numerous type (371
current US registrations) that sees so much use in training.


Jack

I was able to do a search of the BGA database from 1987 to 1997 for
fatal injuries involving K13s, which I would guess play the equivalent
role in UK gliding. No fatal injuries in that 10 (or 11) year period.

It may be that basic trainers are "safer" than other gliders because
they are used for basic training, which might be less risky because
there is an instructor present or because basic training flying is
inherently less likely to result in an accident, or a host of other
reasons. It would be interesting to see if other countries have similar
data for their basic trainers.

I put "safer" in quotes because I'm not sure that the number of
fatalities is a useful measure of glider type - just as an example, I
think an instructor has a higher risk of serious back injury in a basic
trainer, through heavy landings, than in a Nimbus 4.


Jack wrote:
> chipsoars wrote:
>
>> Searched Schweizer Gliders 6/26/2005 to 1/1/1968 on the NTSB database.
>>
>> Fatal 2-33
>>
>> 06/10/78 http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=40460&key=0
>> 04/01/77 http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=56645&key=0
>> 10/06/75 http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=50592&key=0
>> 07/02/72 http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=65574&key=0 (2 fatals)
>> 12/12/71 http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=63260&key=0
>
>
>
> Cites need URL's. I added them.
>
> Previous searchs on "2-33" returned zero fatals, possibly because of the
> haphazard way in which the aircraft model designation is entered into
> earlier FAA/NTSB records. The info can be laboriously picked out of 67
> returned records, after searching for "glider", "Schweizer", and
> "fatal", as
> 'chipsoars' showed.
>
> Another myth dispelled, but it doesn't mean that the 2-33 is not a useful
> and relatively safe trainer.
>
> On a search for "glider" and "fatal", 259 records are returned. Only
> five in
> 2-33's, and none of those since 1978, is very good for a numerous type (371
> current US registrations) that sees so much use in training.
>
>
> Jack
>