Future Club Training Gliders

[RN]

The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at
alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we
will need.

We would be very interested in other club's experience with other
trainers, and what you are using and planning to use in the future.

Our evaluation parameters include high useful load for heavy students
and instructors, ease and availability of parts for maintenance and
repair, durability for student solo operations, and up front cost .

John

[Tony[_5_]]

> Our evaluation parameters include high useful load for heavy students
> and instructors, ease and availability of parts for maintenance and
> repair, *durability for student solo operations, and up front cost .
>
> John

2-33 and 2-22? What's old is new again...

[Frank Whiteley]

On Sep 14, 9:47*am, RN > wrote:
> The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at
> alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we
> will need.
>
> We would be very interested in other club's experience with other
> trainers, and what you are using and planning to use in the future.
>
> Our evaluation parameters include high useful load for heavy students
> and instructors, ease and availability of parts for maintenance and
> repair, *durability for student solo operations, and up front cost .
>
> John

Current production, training and ride gliders.

Last I heard K-21 wait was 6 months, but that was three months ago.
May be far different now. Very popular.

There's no track record on the SZD-54 Perkoz yet, but price may be
favorable. SZD-50 Puchacz, either you like them or you don't.

Clubs using DG-1000's and DG-505's seem quite pleased with them (apart
maybe from the subscription, if applicable)

PW-6 has been around a while. 7 on the US registry.

Possible production.

L-23. Apparently still available but reportedly none built for a
while.

The Peregrine.....If you would consider one of these, you might write
them about your interest, quantity needed, and its suitability to your
requirements; training, rides, or recreational use. http://www.peregrineaerospace.com/
Such documented interest will help with their hunt for capital. Tim
and Patti Barry have been trying to bring this glider to US production
for eight years, encountering some big hurdles along the way. With
financial backing, they say they could be in production in 4-6
months. Currently all tooling and stock is in storage. About 60 have
been built as the Krosno KR-03a and are in several countries,
including 18 on the US registry. Possibly lowest priced if returns to
production. Will have to build three under FAA inspection.

Frank Whiteley

[bildan]

On Sep 14, 12:44*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Sep 14, 9:47*am, RN > wrote:
>
> > The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at
> > alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we
> > will need.
>
> > We would be very interested in other club's experience with other
> > trainers, and what you are using and planning to use in the future.
>
> > Our evaluation parameters include high useful load for heavy students
> > and instructors, ease and availability of parts for maintenance and
> > repair, *durability for student solo operations, and up front cost .
>
> > John
>
> Current production, training and ride gliders.
>
> Last I heard K-21 wait was 6 months, but that was three months ago.
> May be far different now. *Very popular.
>
> There's no track record on the SZD-54 Perkoz yet, but price may be
> favorable. *SZD-50 Puchacz, either you like them or you don't.
>
> Clubs using DG-1000's and DG-505's seem quite pleased with them (apart
> maybe from the subscription, if applicable)
>
> PW-6 has been around a while. 7 on the US registry.
>
> Possible production.
>
> L-23. *Apparently still available but reportedly none built for a
> while.
>
> The Peregrine.....If you would consider one of these, you might write
> them about your interest, quantity needed, and its suitability to your
> requirements; training, rides, or recreational use.http://www.peregrineaerospace.com/
> Such documented interest will help with their hunt for capital. *Tim
> and Patti Barry have been trying to bring this glider to US production
> for eight years, encountering some big hurdles along the way. *With
> financial backing, they say they could be in production in 4-6
> months. *Currently all tooling and stock is in storage. *About 60 have
> been built as the Krosno KR-03a and are in several countries,
> including 18 on the US registry. *Possibly lowest priced if returns to
> production. *Will have to build three under FAA inspection.
>
> Frank Whiteley

ASK-21's are expensive and hard to get but it's VERY hard to find
something to complain about on the glider. The ASK-21 is an absolute
joy to instruct in - big cockpits, big payload, wonderfully
coordinated controls, very forgiving, soars like an angel, easy to
rig, rugged as a tank. ASK-21's make people want to come back for
more, Beautiful glider - makes a 2-33 look like a boat anchor.

Oh, I guess I could complain about the rear canopy acting like a
parabolic mirror which can burn holes in the instructors headrest - if
you point it at the sun and leave the rear canopy open. But, you just
learn not to do that.

DG-505's are just as nice with better performance but perhaps a little
less rugged than an ASK-21.

Peregrine? I think maybe the L-13 debacle has taught us a lesson
about metal gliders.

PW-6? flew one once and liked it but I don't know how they are holding
up.

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

I just talked to John Murray about other stuff, and he mentioned that
ASK 21 are actually remarkably easy to get right now. Our club
(chicago glider club) just bought a new ASK21, and it's a joy both to
fly and teach in.

John Cochrane

[ray conlon]

On Sep 14, 7:13*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> I just talked to John Murray about other stuff, and he mentioned that
> ASK 21 are actually remarkably easy to get right now. Our club
> (chicago glider club) just bought a new ASK21, and it's a joy both to
> fly and teach in.
>
> John Cochrane

Get the Schweizers to bring back the 2-33's, the best BASIC trainer
ever built....

[bildan]

On Sep 14, 5:13*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> I just talked to John Murray about other stuff, and he mentioned that
> ASK 21 are actually remarkably easy to get right now. Our club
> (chicago glider club) just bought a new ASK21, and it's a joy both to
> fly and teach in.
>
> John Cochrane

Really good news!

Buy ASK-21's, they can't be beat as a trainer. Heck, even 2-33
trained pilots can manage to fly them - after they're retrained.

[BTiz]

On Sep 14, 7:49*pm, ray conlon > wrote:

>
> Get the Schweizers to bring back the 2-33's, the best BASIC trainer
> ever built....

I remember a discussion that a group had asked L&S Soaring to redesign
the basic 2-33A, larger aft cockpit, and start building it again.
It may have been a Canadian group. But maybe there still is a US
market. And put a CG hook on it.

[kirk.stant]

On Sep 14, 7:49*pm, ray conlon > wrote:
> On Sep 14, 7:13*pm, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
> > I just talked to John Murray about other stuff, and he mentioned that
> > ASK 21 are actually remarkably easy to get right now. Our club
> > (chicago glider club) just bought a new ASK21, and it's a joy both to
> > fly and teach in.
>
> > John Cochrane
>
> Get the Schweizers to bring back the 2-33's, the best BASIC trainer
> ever built....

Yeah, and the Air Force is going to replace it's T-38s with AT-6s.
Sorry, but the 2-33 is simply not the right trainer anymore (if it
ever was, considering that it postdates the Blanik and is a
contemporary of the sweet little ASK-13!). We need to attract people
to this sport, not drive them away screaming (or laughing,,,)

Kirk

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sep 14, 9:48*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Sep 14, 7:49*pm, ray conlon > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 14, 7:13*pm, John Cochrane >
> > wrote:
>
> > > I just talked to John Murray about other stuff, and he mentioned that
> > > ASK 21 are actually remarkably easy to get right now. Our club
> > > (chicago glider club) just bought a new ASK21, and it's a joy both to
> > > fly and teach in.
>
> > > John Cochrane
>
> > Get the Schweizers to bring back the 2-33's, the best BASIC trainer
> > ever built....
>
> Yeah, and the Air Force is going to replace it's T-38s with AT-6s.
> Sorry, but the 2-33 is simply not the right trainer anymore (if it
> ever was, considering that it postdates the Blanik and is a
> contemporary of the sweet little ASK-13!). *We need to attract people
> to this sport, not drive them away screaming (or laughing,,,)
>
> Kirk

Kirk, well said.

ASK-21 -- great solid and safe ship from a proven manufacturer capable
of supporting their fleet. Then get pilots into the Duos and DG-1000S
class club machines as soon as possible and you'll have more of a
chance of keeping them in the sport. At least give them lots of
chances early on to see what a high performance glider can do.

Darryl

[Grider Pirate]

On Sep 14, 10:09*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Sep 14, 9:48*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 7:49*pm, ray conlon > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 14, 7:13*pm, John Cochrane >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > I just talked to John Murray about other stuff, and he mentioned that
> > > > ASK 21 are actually remarkably easy to get right now. Our club
> > > > (chicago glider club) just bought a new ASK21, and it's a joy both to
> > > > fly and teach in.
>
> > > > John Cochrane
>
> > > Get the Schweizers to bring back the 2-33's, the best BASIC trainer
> > > ever built....
>
> > Yeah, and the Air Force is going to replace it's T-38s with AT-6s.
> > Sorry, but the 2-33 is simply not the right trainer anymore (if it
> > ever was, considering that it postdates the Blanik and is a
> > contemporary of the sweet little ASK-13!). *We need to attract people
> > to this sport, not drive them away screaming (or laughing,,,)
>
> > Kirk
>
> Kirk, well said.
>
> ASK-21 -- great solid and safe ship from a proven manufacturer capable
> of supporting their fleet. Then get pilots into the Duos and DG-1000S
> class club machines as soon as possible and you'll have more of a
> chance of keeping them in the sport. At least give them lots of
> chances early on to see what a high performance glider can do.
>
> Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I am really curious. How many of you got into soaring with no prior
interest in flying? I wanted to fly since I was about 4 years old.
When I was 47, I finally got the chance, and almost all my lessons
were in a 2-33. Frankly I don't think it would have mattered to me
WHAT the club had to fly. I just wanted to be in the air.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sep 14, 10:30*pm, Grider Pirate > wrote:
> On Sep 14, 10:09*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 9:48*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 14, 7:49*pm, ray conlon > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 14, 7:13*pm, John Cochrane >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > I just talked to John Murray about other stuff, and he mentioned that
> > > > > ASK 21 are actually remarkably easy to get right now. Our club
> > > > > (chicago glider club) just bought a new ASK21, and it's a joy both to
> > > > > fly and teach in.
>
> > > > > John Cochrane
>
> > > > Get the Schweizers to bring back the 2-33's, the best BASIC trainer
> > > > ever built....
>
> > > Yeah, and the Air Force is going to replace it's T-38s with AT-6s.
> > > Sorry, but the 2-33 is simply not the right trainer anymore (if it
> > > ever was, considering that it postdates the Blanik and is a
> > > contemporary of the sweet little ASK-13!). *We need to attract people
> > > to this sport, not drive them away screaming (or laughing,,,)
>
> > > Kirk
>
> > Kirk, well said.
>
> > ASK-21 -- great solid and safe ship from a proven manufacturer capable
> > of supporting their fleet. Then get pilots into the Duos and DG-1000S
> > class club machines as soon as possible and you'll have more of a
> > chance of keeping them in the sport. At least give them lots of
> > chances early on to see what a high performance glider can do.
>
> > Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I am really curious. *How many of you got into soaring with no prior
> interest in flying? *I wanted to fly since I was about 4 years old.
> When I was 47, I finally got the chance, and almost all my lessons
> were in a 2-33. *Frankly I don't think it would have mattered to me
> WHAT the club had to fly. I just wanted to be in the air.

I got a power ticket at 17. Lost interest in my late-twenties, but
travel and living overseas for work was a part of that. Took a XC ride
in a Duo in my early forties. Yehow..... OK being in the air is great,
but after playing in a Duo I had no interest in flying a sardine can/
brick and that would not have encouraged me in the slightest to get a
glider rating. I had flown in a L13 as a teenager and thought the
Cessna 172 I flew was more interesting. That Duo ride lead to
suffering in a 2-32 to get my ticket so I could get back to the glass
stuff... club Grob, Pegasus, DG-1000S. And very quickly my own DG-303
and now ASH-26E.

Darryl

[Morgan[_2_]]

> I am really curious. *How many of you got into soaring with no prior
> interest in flying? *I wanted to fly since I was about 4 years old.
> When I was 47, I finally got the chance, and almost all my lessons
> were in a 2-33. *Frankly I don't think it would have mattered to me
> WHAT the club had to fly. I just wanted to be in the air.

Yes I had an interest in all types of aircraft prior to my first
flight in a sailplane. I came to give it a try after 15+ years of
flying hang gliders and my first flight was in a 2-33. I can assure
you that I didn't get into flying sailplanes in order to fly a 2-33 or
a 1-26(No offense to the 1-26rs out there, it's just not what I
wanted). Hang gliding will give you far more challenges in going XC
than a 1-26 and you can do it without the hassles of towplanes, FAA
registration or the maintenance that comes along with sailplanes.

A sleek and beautiful glass ship screams efficiency and draws
attention even from non-flyers.

I am fortunate enough to own a Duo, a glider I bought in part because
my feeling is that far too many club members are lost because they
never experience the next level of performance and capability beyond
our basic trainers. The Blanik L-13 was a good step up from the 2-33
and a nice honest airplane that I enjoy flying, but still lacks the
performance of glass and is a bear to pack up and trailer making it
intimidating at a minimum for XC when the penalty for an off-field
landing is such a large effort.

When visitors come by the club and see the 2-33s and the Duo, which
one do you think draws their attention and interest in a demo more?
Does that mean I'm going to offer up my Duo for primary training?
Hell no, the 2-33 does a bang up job of taking the abuse of a new
student. But it does mean that a significant retraining or at least
additional training effort is required to get them prepared for flying
something slippery and pitch sensitive.

If it was within my power, I'd put an ASK-21 on the field. I wouldn't
toss out the 2-33's or 1-26's, but I would certainly love to replace
our L-13 with a 21 and have a glider to move people up in to and cross
train in.

Morgan

[JS]

The one redeeming quality of the 2-33 "Dragmaster" is that it laughs
at anything roughly resembling a landing.
Peregrine Sailplane got a government contract a few years ago and
forgot about the glider project, including KR-03A support (ie 3000 hr
life extension).
The PW-6 has been around for a while. Perhaps it is a decent trainer?
Ka13 is a lovely glider to fly, but getting old.
IS28b2 goes nicely but has its share of problems. Never had a go in
the IS32.
Bocian? Capstan? Ka-2? At least they fly better than a 2-33.
Too bad Glasflugel never made a two seater. How about converting 604s?
Twin Astir is a bit of a truck to fly, but seems to take some abuse.
Grob twin 2 is not bad, but I've seen a couple with the fuselage
broken around the landing gear and more with square tail and nose
wheels.
Grob twin 3 handles nicer than the 2, know little of it's use as a
basic trainer.
The Puchacz is nice to fly, but some people just don't like it.
Scheibe SF34 is a nice flyer, easy ground handling, great visibility
front and rear. If the new Scheibe Aircraft puts it back into
production the 34 could be a winner.
DG500 isn't bad, not sure about maintenance. DG1000 is better if you
get the electric landing gear mod and keep the battery charged.
The Duo really is wonderful, especially the X (haven't flown XL) but
not cheap. You cannot intentionally spin the original Duos. Great
support.
AS-H25 and Nimbus 4D are both very nice for XC training, but not for
low time pilots.
AS-K21 gets my vote for this job. Comfortable, sturdy, reasonable
handling. Available new or used. Great support.
Jim

[Alex Potter]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 22:30:49 -0700, Grider Pirate wrote:

> I am really curious. How many of you got into soaring with no prior
> interest in flying? I wanted to fly since I was about 4 years old. When
> I was 47, I finally got the chance, and almost all my lessons were in a
> 2-33. Frankly I don't think it would have mattered to me WHAT the club
> had to fly. I just wanted to be in the air.

Sounds like me. I soloed two weeks after my 50th birthday. I flew a few
different types of aircraft before then, but, after the duo-discus, I
much preferred the Puchacz.

I didn't like flying the type that wouldn't spin - was that the ASK 21?

--
Alex

[Surfer![_2_]]

"JS" > wrote in message
...
> The one redeeming quality of the 2-33 "Dragmaster" is that it laughs
> at anything roughly resembling a landing.

However I suspect there could be a substantial amount of retraining required
to fly other more slippery ships...

<snip>

> The PW-6 has been around for a while. Perhaps it is a decent trainer?

Fine to fly but allegedly somewhat delicate.

> Ka13 is a lovely glider to fly, but getting old.

Lots around, cheap, the largest club in the UK has a fleet of them for it's
primary trainers, now (I think) all with the nose wheel mod which is far
safer than a skid for a messed-up landing.

<snip>

> DG500 isn't bad, not sure about maintenance.

Lovely to fly but not a primary trainer.

<snip>

> AS-K21 gets my vote for this job. Comfortable, sturdy, reasonable
> handling. Available new or used. Great support.
> Jim

Agreed.

[ray conlon]

On Sep 15, 5:35*am, "Surfer!" > wrote:
> "JS" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > The one redeeming quality of the 2-33 "Dragmaster" is that it laughs
> > at anything roughly resembling a landing.
>
> However I suspect there could be a substantial amount of retraining required
> to fly other more slippery ships...
>
> <snip>
>
> > The PW-6 has been around for a while. Perhaps it is a decent trainer?
>
> Fine to fly but allegedly somewhat delicate.
>
> > Ka13 is a lovely glider to fly, but getting old.
>
> Lots around, cheap, the largest club in the UK has a fleet of them for it's
> primary trainers, now (I think) all with the nose wheel mod which is far
> safer than a skid for a messed-up landing.
>
> <snip>
>
> > DG500 isn't bad, not sure about maintenance.
>
> Lovely to fly but not a primary trainer.
>
> <snip>
>
> > AS-K21 gets my vote for this job. Comfortable, sturdy, reasonable
> > handling. Available new or used. Great support.
> > Jim
>
> Agreed.

A large part of the problem in attracting new pilots into soaring is
the cost involved in getting started, you can buy/fly/insure 5 2-33's
for the cost of 1 glass 2 seater, we are talking about a basic trainer
here, not something to race 4 times a year. If the Blaniks and 2-33's
go away, the SAA and number of glider pilots in the USA will shrink to
no more than a couple of thousand pilots. Look at GA, anyone see long
lines of people standing in the Mooney,Bonanza tents at Oshkosh
lately? Notice the crowds in the Light Sport Aircraft tents? The only
growth i sport flying is in the LSA area, you know ,the simple
affordable aircraft.

[bildan]

On Sep 14, 10:48*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Sep 14, 7:49*pm, ray conlon > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 14, 7:13*pm, John Cochrane >
> > wrote:
>
> > > I just talked to John Murray about other stuff, and he mentioned that
> > > ASK 21 are actually remarkably easy to get right now. Our club
> > > (chicago glider club) just bought a new ASK21, and it's a joy both to
> > > fly and teach in.
>
> > > John Cochrane
>
> > Get the Schweizers to bring back the 2-33's, the best BASIC trainer
> > ever built....
>
> Yeah, and the Air Force is going to replace it's T-38s with AT-6s.
> Sorry, but the 2-33 is simply not the right trainer anymore (if it
> ever was, considering that it postdates the Blanik and is a
> contemporary of the sweet little ASK-13!). *We need to attract people
> to this sport, not drive them away screaming (or laughing,,,)
>
> Kirk

Exactly!

The 2-33 is suffering the same metal fatigue problems in it's wings as
the L-13.

It also has a HUGE airworthiness issue in that the flight controls in
the front cockpit cannot be moved full range without interfering with
each other. Try holding the spoiler at 50% and moving the stick
through its full range box. Its a mystery how it got an airworthiness
certificate back in 1962. Most pilots with above average thigh
circumference have very little left aileron with 50% spoiler.

The only proper use of a 2-33 is hanging in a museum - as an example
of how NOT to design a glider.

[John Smith]

Am 15.09.10 01:13, schrieb John Cochrane:
> I just talked to John Murray about other stuff, and he mentioned that
> ASK 21 are actually remarkably easy to get right now. Our club
> (chicago glider club) just bought a new ASK21, and it's a joy both to
> fly and teach in.

I don't understand why someone would still buy an ASK21 today when you
can get a DG1000 or a Duo which offer *much* more performance for little
more money. And yes, they are perfectly suited for primary training.

[John Smith]

Grider Pirate wrote:
> I wanted to fly since I was about 4 years old.
> When I was 47, I finally got the chance, and almost all my lessons
> were in a 2-33. Frankly I don't think it would have mattered to me
> WHAT the club had to fly. I just wanted to be in the air.

George Moffat in "Winning on the Wind":

As a boy, I discovered a copy of Terence Horselay's "Soaring Flight" in
the local library. I must have pretty much worn out their copy, mooning
over pictures of the then fabulous Minimoa, reading accounts by the
great Philip Wills, becoming utterly entranced with the idea of silent
flight.

....

[First training flights in the USA]
After only a few flights in the stodgy two-place trainer, I became
bored. The handling was poor, the performance terrible. There seemed no
connection to the early dream.

....

That summer, while living in Paris [his first solo in an Emouchet, the
French version of the Grunau Baby] ...

Once aloft, the air rushing over my face, the wings seeming extensions
of my arms from the narrow cockpit, I knew that this was the experience
I had dreamed about. ...

That day, late in the evening, Camille Labar, member of the French
National Team, skimmed over the field in the Breguet after completing a
440 km triangle. There were, it seemed, a few things to be learned.



Bottom line: The training glider does matter. And it also does matter
that there are some cross country pilots around.

[Tony[_5_]]

> The 2-33 is suffering the same metal fatigue problems in it's wings as
> the L-13.


Is this statement based on actual issues with 2-33 wings or just the
fact that "it is metal, it will fatigue eventually"?

I see no mention in any of the Schweizer Service Bulletins about
issues with 2-22 or 2-33 wing structure and have never heard of any
problems either.

I notice that 3 or 4 of the USA World Team members trained in
Schweizers.

[Westbender]

You guys throw around these ideas that we should just do away with
2-33 and train with new DG's and ASK21's. Have you ever considered how
many smaller clubs there are that cannot afford to do such a thing? If
you're willing to donate the money to our club for a new ASK21, we'd
be happy to accomodate your idea.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Sep 15, 9:59*am, Westbender > wrote:
> You guys throw around these ideas that we should just do away with
> 2-33 and train with new DG's and ASK21's. Have you ever considered how
> many smaller clubs there are that cannot afford to do such a thing? If
> you're willing to donate the money to our club for a new ASK21, we'd
> be happy to accomodate your idea.

exactly. i'm a member of two clubs and i dont think either one could
afford a new ASK, Duo, or DG if they sold all of their assets.

Well I suppose we could start charging $500 or $1000 to join and jack
up the monthly dues and flight fees. And watch most of our membership
disappear...

[mattm[_2_]]

On Sep 15, 10:34*am, Tony > wrote:
> > The 2-33 is suffering the same metal fatigue problems in it's wings as
> > the L-13.
>
> Is this statement based on actual issues with 2-33 wings or just the
> fact that "it is metal, it will fatigue eventually"?
>
> I see no mention in any of the Schweizer Service Bulletins about
> issues with 2-22 or 2-33 wing structure and have never heard of any
> problems either.
>
> I notice that 3 or 4 of the USA World Team members trained in
> Schweizers.

Heck, I trained in Schweizers as well (not too likely to be a team
member though). Post solo I had a chance to fly a K-21, which went
fine since I'd been trained to a high standard. Even with flying
"low performance" planes from the start I stuck with flying;
I did learn to soar well in those things.

I'd love to instruct in a K-21 these days, but cost really is an
issue.
I hardly ever see K-21s on Wings and Wheels; there are a couple
available in Europe for 50-60K Euros. New ones are advertised for
64K Euros, and I would think the delivery price with needed
instruments would wind up higher (I've heard $90K for new).
Typical 2-33s, L-13s, and K-7s go for $10-15K or so.

We've hashed over this argument before. A number of clubs
have managed to afford the more expensive ships for primary
training; I say more power to them. Many of us can only
afford cheaper lower performance planes. We can still train
good pilots in them.

-- Matt

[Kevin Christner]

I have spent enough time instructing to see two types of students,
Schweizer trained and everyone else. Place these two types in an
ASK-21. Schweizer trained students often lack refined control
coordination and almost always have little ability to control pitch
and speed properly. The other students seem to do much better. The
Schweizer simply does not require the refined control of more modern
gliders to be flown in a way that seems coordinated. Being trained in
a Schweizer typically means you will need to be totally retrained to
fly anything else, and the bad habits first learned will often creep
back.

Find me one world team member that thinks primary training in a
Schweizer is a good idea. I doubt you'll have any glowing advocates.

KJC

On Sep 15, 7:34*am, Tony > wrote:
> > The 2-33 is suffering the same metal fatigue problems in it's wings as
> > the L-13.
>
> Is this statement based on actual issues with 2-33 wings or just the
> fact that "it is metal, it will fatigue eventually"?
>
> I see no mention in any of the Schweizer Service Bulletins about
> issues with 2-22 or 2-33 wing structure and have never heard of any
> problems either.
>
> I notice that 3 or 4 of the USA World Team members trained in
> Schweizers.

[Tony[_5_]]

> Find me one world team member that thinks primary training in a
> Schweizer is a good idea. *I doubt you'll have any glowing advocates.


unless it was the only way they could afford the training.

[bildan]

On Sep 15, 8:34*am, Tony > wrote:
> > The 2-33 is suffering the same metal fatigue problems in it's wings as
> > the L-13.
>
> Is this statement based on actual issues with 2-33 wings or just the
> fact that "it is metal, it will fatigue eventually"?
>
> I see no mention in any of the Schweizer Service Bulletins about
> issues with 2-22 or 2-33 wing structure and have never heard of any
> problems either.
>
> I notice that 3 or 4 of the USA World Team members trained in
> Schweizers.

A large fraction of 2-33's already have patches on their wings due to
metal fatigue cracks. I've found cracks on several the AI missed.
Look at the skins on top of the wing ahead of the spar. If there are
skin cracks, there's a good chance of other cracks where they can't be
seen. There will be an AD - probably sooner than later.

As to why there are no SB's - ask Schweizer.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sep 15, 6:54*am, John Smith > wrote:
> Am 15.09.10 01:13, schrieb John Cochrane:
>
> > I just talked to John Murray about other stuff, and he mentioned that
> > ASK 21 are actually remarkably easy to get right now. Our club
> > (chicago glider club) just bought a new ASK21, and it's a joy both to
> > fly and teach in.
>
> I don't understand why someone would still buy an ASK21 today when you
> can get a DG1000 or a Duo which offer *much* more performance for little
> more money. And yes, they are perfectly suited for primary training.

I know they can and credit to places that are doing this, but I think
there is still a place for a slightly more "agricultural" primary
trainer. Especially if there is a training fleet to keep busy with
primary instruction. You can learn to fly power in a Bonanza but a
C172 with fixed gear and simpler systems is less likely to get a pilot
in trouble. I know you can get club versions of the DG-1000, with
fixed gear etc, but by the time I had a DG-1000 I'd want the retract
version and use it more XC.

It is unfortunate the some operations may end up in a very tough place
with the L13 issue and it comes at a time when the economy is bad.
Trying to contain costs is a good goal, but I worry that a lot of
clubs/operations in the USA are operating "on the wrong side of the
curve". i.e. focus on driving down to a minial cost - not working on
attracting people who are likely to stay around and fly XC, buy their
own gliders, etc. - that is helped by having a more modern training
fleet and focus on XC capable ships and XC instruction/mentoring to
get people going.

I look at what Morgan is doing at Avenal by having his Duo there and
that seems to be driving a lot more interest/activity in XC soaring by
pilots there. Or at Williams where you have sixteen year old line-boys
working their hours off and getting started flying XC in ASW-24s.
$100k divided by 20 people is $5k each. Scale for the right amount,
but even in tough financial times I'd still hope that type of funding
makes it possible to raise a pool to purchase a glass trainer. I know
it is not going to be possible everywhere.

BTW I have nothing against older gliders, many of them are just
*beautiful* and I'm glad to see them being flown and looked after.

Darryl

[Bart[_4_]]

On Sep 14, 10:30*pm, Grider Pirate > wrote:
[....]
> Frankly I don't think it would have mattered to me
> WHAT the club had to fly. I just wanted to be in the air.

Same here.

Now, all things being equal, I do prefer to fly a better glider. The
problem is, things are rarely equal. In my (admittedly limited)
experience, a club with a glass fleet will:
- be expensive to join, or
- be expensive to stay in, or,
- limit flying time (many members, few gliders), or
- all of the above.

Given a choice between getting a glass ship for an hour or 1-26 for
half a day, I'll take 1-26.

B.

[Kevin Christner]

On Sep 15, 8:37*am, Tony > wrote:
> > Find me one world team member that thinks primary training in a
> > Schweizer is a good idea. *I doubt you'll have any glowing advocates.
>
> unless it was the only way they could afford the training.

As an advocate of wood and glue your defense of Schweizers puzzles me,
so I'll figure its because your unaware of the far better wooden
alternatives. The Ka7/Berfalke III/IV and the like come up for sale
on a regular basis in the $7-$10k range and offer far better training
and handling characteristics. You can almost begin to teach energy
management in them - they at least have enough energy for one high
speed pass followed by an immediate 180 and landing - don't ask me how
I know. The rear seats have adjustable rudder pedals and *gasp* an
instrument panel.

Perhaps the best thing I can say is that you can teach a student to
land two point or better yet tail first. The inability of such a
large percentage of US pilots to do proper low energy landings is
probably the biggest contributor to the amount of ground loop damage
in outlandings. I remember standing next to one very well regarded
European pilot watching a number of landings at the end of a contest
day. He said to the gathered group "Does anyone in American know how
to land a glider properly? We would not let any of you go solo!"

Try a wooden alternative, you just might like it.

I know of one club who sold their Ka7 last year to "upgrade" to an
L-13. Quite unfortunate.

KJC

[JS]

For more limited resources than required for an aerotowed AS-K21:
A. Winch. A cheap way to launch students to solo.
B. Ka13. Comfortable, nice handling (better prep for slippery ships),
can do limited aerobatics, climbs great on a winch, and has factory
support.
If you insist on a Schweizer, go for the 2-22, which has better
handling qualities than the 2-33.
But one handicap nearly all US operations seem to have is the desire
to park the fleet outside in the weather, adding complications.
Want a demonstration of inexpensive? Here's a 2-22 auto tow video...
http://www.youtube.com/user/daceknerr?feature=mhw5#p/u/10/pLUAS7wD_eo
Josh goes XC in his Ka8 off these tows.
Jim

[John Smith]

Darryl Ramm wrote:
>> I don't understand why someone would still buy an ASK21 today when you
>> can get a DG1000 or a Duo which offer *much* more performance for little
>> more money. And yes, they are perfectly suited for primary training.

> I know they can and credit to places that are doing this, but I think
> there is still a place for a slightly more "agricultural" primary
> trainer. Especially if there is a training fleet to keep busy with
> primary instruction.
....
> attracting people who are likely to stay around and fly XC, buy their
> own gliders, etc. - that is helped by having a more modern training
> fleet and focus on XC capable ships and XC instruction/mentoring to
> get people going.

You are aware that you are contradicting yourself?

BTW, in Europe, an introduction to cross country flying is a required
part of the primary training.

[Surfer![_2_]]

"Tony" > wrote in message
...
> On Sep 15, 9:59 am, Westbender > wrote:
>> You guys throw around these ideas that we should just do away with
>> 2-33 and train with new DG's and ASK21's. Have you ever considered how
>> many smaller clubs there are that cannot afford to do such a thing? If
>> you're willing to donate the money to our club for a new ASK21, we'd
>> be happy to accomodate your idea.
>
> exactly. i'm a member of two clubs and i dont think either one could
> afford a new ASK, Duo, or DG if they sold all of their assets.

Small clubs in the UK usually use a K13, which I am told is a excellent
trainer.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sep 15, 10:04*am, John Smith > wrote:
> Darryl Ramm wrote:
> >> I don't understand why someone would still buy an ASK21 today when you
> >> can get a DG1000 or a Duo which offer *much* more performance for little
> >> more money. And yes, they are perfectly suited for primary training.
> > I know they can and credit to places that are doing this, but I think
> > there is still a place for a slightly more "agricultural" primary
> > trainer. Especially if there is a training fleet to keep busy with
> > primary instruction.
> ...
> > attracting people who are likely to stay around and fly XC, buy their
> > own gliders, etc. - that is helped by having a more modern training
> > fleet and focus on XC capable ships and XC instruction/mentoring to
> > get people going.
>
> You are aware that you are contradicting yourself?
>
> BTW, in Europe, an introduction to cross country flying is a required
> part of the primary training.

No, not on this (on other things I am sure frequently). Start in
ASK-21s go to DG-1000S and Duo class machines. That is not a
contradiction, its a compliment. If you can only afford one ship, then
yes the decision is more difficult.

With "more modern training fleet" I had meant to include ASK-21. It
might look old compared to a DG-1000S Club but it has decades on other
frequently used trainers here and removes most of the high-performance
glass transition issues.

I wish USA training had a progression to XC that was more structured/
mandatory than the SSA ABC badges. The ABC badge program is a good
start but many places just see to leave students lost what to do after
they have their license.

Darryl

[Surfer![_2_]]

"Tony" > wrote in message
...
>> The 2-33 is suffering the same metal fatigue problems in it's wings as
<snip>
>
> I notice that 3 or 4 of the USA World Team members trained in
> Schweizers.

But since the Schweizer seems to be the training ship of choice in most US
clubs that shouldn't be a surprise. It's certainly not (IMHO) an
endorsement of them.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

There's an aspect of discussions as this I find quite interesting, and even
though it's a common part of them (the discussions) it's rarely mentioned. The
aspect is this: people quite often (and naturally?) project their personal
druthers onto the discussion as a whole...as if one's personal approach is the
only - or the most - valid one.

Personally, I think that if someone was king and could impose such thinking on
the sport (in the U.S., anyway), participation would take an immediate and
negative hit, for the reasons others (rightly, IMHO) have pointed out...e.g.
costs of entry & training & fleet insurance, etc.

Now as Kevin C. points out below (and he's in good company with Tom Knauff,
among others I know of)...

On 9/15/2010 10:58 AM, Kevin Christner wrote:

> Perhaps the best thing I can say is that you can teach a student to
> land two point or better yet tail first.
Such training is definitely a good thing, IMHO...

The inability of such a
> large percentage of US pilots to do proper low energy landings is
> probably the biggest contributor to the amount of ground loop damage
> in outlandings.
I'm not about to argue the point!

....Schweizers aren't the best to teach 2-point, low-energy landings in (though
it IS easily/safely/definitely possible to do so in 2-33's with the
spring-tailwheel mod). That said - and with a nod toward Kevin's/Tom's
'primacy of learning argument' I'm inclined to think 'primacy' is (arguably)
overstated when it comes to 2-point landing discussion. Here's why...

My basic training was in 2-33's, my first single-seat gliders were 1-26s, my
first 4 off-field landings were in 1-26s. And yet - when it came to performing
OFLs - it was immediately obvious to me that 2-point (or lowest-possible safe
energy) touchdowns were the safest (to the plane and to me) ticket...so that's
what I did, both in 1-26s (4 OFls) and succeeding tail-draggers (~20 OFLs). I
have *never* had any formal 2-point-landing instruction (from an instructor
other than myself)...and since the mid-'70's until now have had many an
occasion to share my 'soaring wisdom' - specifically the wisdom supporting
low-energy field landings - with fellow practitioners. Call it 'wisdom
sharing', 'bull sessions', 'beer debriefings' or whatever...we all do it.

What I've found is some pilots have 'gotten it' (the wisdom, I mean) on their
own, some 'immediately get it' when we chat, some clearly do not 'get it' from
such discussions (though they may over time...), and some 'never get it'
(despite instruction). Regardless of how they have 'gotten it' those that do,
seem to actively work to apply the concept, and to further develop their
landing skills/energy management going forward.

As for 'primacy' in this particular instance, I'd argue it little matters,
simply because OFLs rarely are 'instantaneously stressful' (the usual argument
advanced in defence of the law of primacy being applicable). Hence any
'properly prepared pilot' should have ample opportunity to think through
precisely what it is s/he hopes to accomplish as they are sinking toward a
possible OFL (or any other landing, for that matter). Anecdotally speaking, it
worked that way for me on my 1st OFL, even though it was a (dismaying!)
not-actively-planned/wanted event at that time. Stated another way, the stress
of an impending OFL is insufficient reason for *any* pilot to 'have to' revert
to laws of primacy as their 'excuse' controlling all that's about to happen.

Soaring requires thought, and excepting those emergency situations that in
fact do happen suddenly and surprisingly, primacy shouldn't ever be a major
factor in how one applies his or her flight skills.

I suspect an absolutely fascinating statistic (if impossible to ever obtain)
would be a comprehensive compilation correlating OFLs gone bad with pilot
training. While I've no doubt some distinct/significant/(small?) proportion
could be 'obviously' laid to some combination of inadequate/incomplete
training compared to flight decisions actually made that resulted in the OFL,
I'd lay significant money on there also being a (considerably?) larger
proportion of OFL accidents committed by 'pilots who had every training
opportunity beforehand to know better.'

My point is, dual-training isn't a panacea, and anyone who argues it is is
choosing to ignore a considerable proportion of reality.

Regards,
Bob W.

P.S. My worst/only OFL-induced damage occurred on 1-26 OFL #4 when I
single-mindedly landed in a freshly plowed field, and a dirt clod poked a
small hole in the nose fabric. On short final I realized the biggest clod in
the field was about to arrive. Yes, there were better surfaces within easy
reach had I not been so (newbie-influenced) single-minded in my field surface
assessments.

[noel.wade]

On Sep 15, 10:14*am, "Surfer!" > wrote:
>
> But since the Schweizer seems to be the training ship of choice in most US
> clubs that shouldn't be a surprise. *It's certainly not (IMHO) an
> endorsement of them.

I couldn't agree more! As a "younger" glider pilot myself (29 when I
started), let me make a few assertions:

1) Do you think you can get *ANY* young person interested in soaring
if what they see is a 2-33? After playing any modern computer game?
After watching movies like "The Fast and the Furious"? The 2-33 looks
like a dog and flies slowly. Those of you who talk about being "happy
just to be in the air" have to realize what a tiny minority you are -
and that your numbers are dwindling. People these days are often
flying hundreds of miles per hour in jetliners before they're 10.
They're mixing it up in 60 - 80mph traffic by the time they're 15 or
16 (and even their economy cars have power windows, power door locks,
keyless remote, and a dock for their Phone/MP3-player). They're
playing with Google Maps and Google Earth - seeing the world from that
vantage point is not new to them. Being in the air is not new to
them. They don't know what they're missing; but they *are* going to
have a whole lot of preconceived notions about it, and their
experiences are going to bias them towards wanting something that's
fast, sleek, exciting, modern, high-tech, etc. NONE of those things
apply to the 2-33. If you want to turn a young person OFF, show then
a 2-33! They'll either stick to Flight Simulators or they'll walk
over to fly powered airplanes - you know, "the exciting and fast kind
of flying". Oh, and how many young (under 40), energetic instructors
are there in the USA? Right. So from the perspective of a young
person (under 35, let's say), their introduction to soaring is a 50 or
60 year old guy standing next to a glider that's of equal age. Yeah,
really enticing! :-P Good luck with that, folks. At least an L-13 or
L-23 looks sleeker (by comparison) and flies a whole lot better.

2) One more thing: the 2-33 is a favorite because it is cheap, and it
is easy to fix/maintain (especially for FBOs/commercial operators).
Notice that neither of these has ANYTHING to do with flying qualities
or its value in training good pilot skills! I started in an L-13,
made the jump to a 1-36 quite easily, and then had to go drop back to
a 2-33 for my license. The 2-33 was HELL. Sloppy controls, TITANIC
throw required to get a good response, and my big legs (I'm 6'1" and
215 lbs) meant that I had to lift my leg and tuck the stick under the
back of my knee to get full aileron deflection - NOT the safest way to
fly! The 2-33 is nothing like the advanced metal & glass I have flown
since. Its usefulness (if it has any) is restricted to very early
primary training, since you can't use it to develop advanced skills
(such as flying XC or good thermal-centering in anything representing
the same manner you work thermals in a more modern/capable ship).

--Noel

[bildan]

On Sep 15, 8:59*am, Westbender > wrote:
> You guys throw around these ideas that we should just do away with
> 2-33 and train with new DG's and ASK21's. Have you ever considered how
> many smaller clubs there are that cannot afford to do such a thing? If
> you're willing to donate the money to our club for a new ASK21, we'd
> be happy to accomodate your idea.

Yes, we have thought about it - a lot.

The reason smaller clubs can't afford anything but 2-33's is simply
BECAUSE THEY HAVE 2-33's! Their 'product' is so unappealing, they
can't attract members which is why these clubs are small and poor in
the first place. Dump 2-33's for ASK-21's and watch the sport grow.

I learned from Paul McCready the cheapest way to do anything is to do
it right in the first place. I'm a strong advocate of low cost glider
flying but 2-33's are 180 degrees the wrong way to go. The solution
to cheap flying is to 'do it right' with attractive gliders and a
winch operation.

[Kevin Christner]

> As for 'primacy' in this particular instance, I'd argue it little matters,
> simply because OFLs rarely are 'instantaneously stressful' (the usual argument
> advanced in defence of the law of primacy being applicable). Hence any
> 'properly prepared pilot' should have ample opportunity to think through
> precisely what it is s/he hopes to accomplish as they are sinking toward a
> possible OFL (or any other landing, for that matter). Anecdotally speaking, it
> worked that way for me on my 1st OFL, even though it was a (dismaying!)
> not-actively-planned/wanted event at that time. Stated another way, the stress
> of an impending OFL is insufficient reason for *any* pilot to 'have to' revert
> to laws of primacy as their 'excuse' controlling all that's about to happen.
>

Bob,

I'm glad you realized that 2-point approaches are the best way avoid
land out damage. Unfortunately, it appears a large portion of US
pilots disagree with you!

I appreciate your argument regarding primacy, but for most I'm not
sure it works like that. Regardless of how much time you have to
think about an off-field landing, they are still 'stressful' enough
that reversion to bad habits is highly likely to occur. Another point
would be bad things very rarely happen with the first bad decision.
Too much energy at touchdown is often a result of a pattern flown to
quickly. I can't count the number of times I've gone up with someone
who flew their pattern 5-8kts over best L/D speed in benign
conditions. When you ask why its because "its safer." This may be
"safe" but it I doubt it's "safer" at the time and it certainly won't
be "safer" when you are going into a 400ft field and a pattern speed 4
or 5 knots below L/D is called for. The benign conditions would have
been a perfect time to practice a minimum energy pattern - but then
again, they've never heard of that.

And, if we accept primacy does not occur to "nerves of steel"
attempting his first off field landing, I'd still preferred he has
lots of practice on low energy approaches followed by minimum energy
landings. Ultimately this is not an argument about 2-33's vs. K-21s,
but rather an argument about the pitiful state of glider training in
the US.

KJC

[Tony[_5_]]

On Sep 15, 11:58*am, Kevin Christner >
wrote:
> On Sep 15, 8:37*am, Tony > wrote:
>
> > > Find me one world team member that thinks primary training in a
> > > Schweizer is a good idea. *I doubt you'll have any glowing advocates.
>
> > unless it was the only way they could afford the training.
>
> As an advocate of wood and glue your defense of Schweizers puzzles me,
> so I'll figure its because your unaware of the far better wooden
> alternatives. *The Ka7/Berfalke III/IV and the like come up for sale
> on a regular basis in the $7-$10k range and offer far better training
> and handling characteristics. *You can almost begin to teach energy
> management in them - they at least have enough energy for one high
> speed pass followed by an immediate 180 and landing - don't ask me how
> I know. *The rear seats have adjustable rudder pedals and *gasp* an
> instrument panel.
>
> Perhaps the best thing I can say is that you can teach a student to
> land two point or better yet tail first. *The inability of such a
> large percentage of US pilots to do proper low energy landings is
> probably the biggest contributor to the amount of ground loop damage
> in outlandings. *I remember standing next to one very well regarded
> European pilot watching a number of landings at the end of a contest
> day. *He said to the gathered group "Does anyone in American know how
> to land a glider properly? *We would not let any of you go solo!"
>
> Try a wooden alternative, you just might like it.
>
> I know of one club who sold their Ka7 last year to "upgrade" to an
> L-13. *Quite unfortunate.
>
> KJC

I think a Ka7 or ASK-13 would be a great club glider. In fact I'm
promoting my old club who has an L13 lawn ornament to explore Ka7's.
However there are about 30 Ka7's on the registry and 16 ASK-13's.
Compare that with ~350 2-33's. Retiring the fleet of 2-33's would
absolutely cripple glider training in the US. Losing all the L-13's
for the time being is bad enough.

[Michael Jaworski[_2_]]

Just to throw a spanner in the works, is everyone suggesting the AS-K21 as
a primary trainer aware that it is as good as impossible to spin whilst the
CofG is within approved limits? A-S make a spin kit, but this means that if
you want to use the K21 as a primary trainer you need to faff around with
installing weights on the tail before every flight where you intend to
spin the glider, then faff around removing them again afterwards.

The solution my club (Lasham in the UK) has is to have diversity in the
training fleet, although we have the luxury of >600 members, >100 private
gliders and > 50 students at any one time paying fees to support all
this.

Our fleet:

9(I think) x AS-K13: Wood, Steel Tube + Fabric. Used for ab-initio
training because they are easy and cheap to repair, plus they spin (and
recover) well. K-7 would probably do just as well for this job.

2 x AS-K21: Used for transitioning students onto glass at a later stage of
training. Also good for aerobatic training, which I think is a point which
has been missed so far in this discussion. Will not spin readily (see
above).

2 x DG-1000: Used for XC and aerobatics training, plus private hire to
club members wishing to go on dual XC flights.

1 x Duo Discus: Used for XC training / Private hire

Anyway, I think the point I am trying to make is that maybe there is not
one particular glider which is ideal for everything?

[Westbender]

On Sep 15, 12:57*pm, bildan > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 8:59*am, Westbender > wrote:
>
> > You guys throw around these ideas that we should just do away with
> > 2-33 and train with new DG's and ASK21's. Have you ever considered how
> > many smaller clubs there are that cannot afford to do such a thing? If
> > you're willing to donate the money to our club for a new ASK21, we'd
> > be happy to accomodate your idea.
>
> Yes, we have thought about it - a lot.
>


Great! Email me offline and I'll give you the address to send the
check...

[John Smith]

Michael Jaworski wrote:
> if you want to use the K21 as a primary trainer you need to faff around with
> installing weights on the tail before every flight where you intend to
> spin the glider, then faff around removing them again afterwards.

Actually, I love this. It forces the student to contemplate on the
desired CofG, then weigh the pilots, calculate the needed amount of lead
and finally go up and trust in his calculation. (Which, of course, the
instructor has discreetly double-checked.)

Mounting and unmounting the lead is a matter of seconds and a complete
non-issue. Actually, I think aerobatics is the only application in which
the ASK21 beats the DG1000 because the latter is way too slippery.

[JS]

Good points by all.
There is nothing that speaks or even whispers "future" (see the
subject line) about a 2-33, so I think it's only mentioned due to
economy. As Bill suggests, it's an antiquated plan and does not take
into consideration young pilot mentality as Noel explained. We need to
listen to more "junior" pilots, and not just assume they're
inexperienced etc.
Contrasting, but certainly not a primary trainer... The Arcus
screams "FUTURE".
My club trains using aero tow (1x) and winch (2x) launching in a
Puchatek, then solo in the Puchatek. Solo in Junior. Dual in G103,
solo in it. Then possibly solo in Jantar Standard or dual in Twin
Astir. Other ships to move up to are LS-7, LS-6, and Duo XT. All kept
in hangars, with tail tow equipment and instruments like you'd expect.
Not a one without a radio, audio vario or FLARM (there's a FLARM in
the Callair too). Everything but the Junior has a flight computer /
GPS data logger.
Like owning a house, aircraft ownership requires more than routine
maintenance. If you don't make upgrades periodically, your home or
fleet may look OK to you but will look outdated to others.
I have e-mailed Scheibe Aircraft (still producing the Motorfalke) to
see if there is any truth to the rumor that they will reintroduce the
SF-34. I know of only one in the USA, at Moriarty, NM. Believe it used
to be in Greensboro, NC or was that another one? But it will likely
cost as much as an AS-K21.
In Australia, the bulk of glider pilots are referred to as "OFITTH",
meaning "Old Farts In Terry Towel Hats". We all need to stop thinking
like an OFITTH.
Jim

[Tim Mara]

I honestly think everyone is jumping to conclusions far too early....the AD
on Blanik's will reach a satisfactory conclusion all soon enough .there are
just too many of these world wide in continuous use and for all practical
purposes the AD's on these gliders have been few and far between..they are
still among the best club training gliders available by far..and they are
affordable...for the abuse these gliders have been given throughout their
lives, the "club's" lack of attention, stored outside in the elements and
basically given "office" annual inspections by many clubs and users they
have been rewarding ten's of thousands of hours and pilot
certificates....the alternatives.2-33's and 2-22's though old and a bit
clumsy have also done an admirable job or creating pilot certificates and
will continue to do so.not with a lot of glamour, but still working....K7's
and K-13's have done a good job but old and hard to find, at least at
affordable prices in the USA and the wood takes special care and
storage....and can also and has been a subject of AD's and special service
bulletins..K21's and Grobs have had and will have their share of AD's, many
very expensive to repair, more so than what the AD is likely going to be on
the L-13's...DG1000's and Duo's.not likely going to fit into club budgets
for 2011 HpH will hopefully have the new Twin Shark available to offer...it
too is however going to be out of the budget for most clubs, or, even if
they have one, not likely to fit assembled in the most typical club hangar
either......and if these glass and carbon fiber gliders are left to the
elements and tied outside like an L-13...then you'll find the real cost of
ownership.

Clubs to exist will need lower cost trainers....like Blaniks....those that
can be affordable to rent, lease, own and replace...few clubs will have
$100,000.00 budgets for new glass ships...and if they can't find affordable
gliders these clubs will simply fail to exist....
tim


"John Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Jaworski wrote:
>> if you want to use the K21 as a primary trainer you need to faff around
>> with
>> installing weights on the tail before every flight where you intend to
>> spin the glider, then faff around removing them again afterwards.
>
> Actually, I love this. It forces the student to contemplate on the desired
> CofG, then weigh the pilots, calculate the needed amount of lead and
> finally go up and trust in his calculation. (Which, of course, the
> instructor has discreetly double-checked.)
>
> Mounting and unmounting the lead is a matter of seconds and a complete
> non-issue. Actually, I think aerobatics is the only application in which
> the ASK21 beats the DG1000 because the latter is way too slippery.
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5453 (20100915) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5453 (20100915) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[[email protected]]

On Sep 15, 11:13*am, Kevin Christner >
wrote:
> I have spent enough time instructing to see two types of students,
> Schweizer trained and everyone else. *Place these two types in an
> ASK-21. *Schweizer trained students often lack refined control
> coordination and almost always have little ability to control pitch
> and speed properly. *The other students seem to do much better. *The
> Schweizer simply does not require the refined control of more modern
> gliders to be flown in a way that seems coordinated. *Being trained in
> a Schweizer typically means you will need to be totally retrained to
> fly anything else, and the bad habits first learned will often creep
> back.
>
> Find me one world team member that thinks primary training in a
> Schweizer is a good idea. *I doubt you'll have any glowing advocates.
>
> KJC
>
> You found one. I train in 2-33's every weekend I'm not racing. I completely disagree about skills as they relate to what glider is used. That is a function of good instructing much more than the platform.
Would I like it to be more comfortable in the back? You betcha!
All this said, our 2-33 fleet still provides economical, weather
tolerant, safe, durable service.
We added another to our fleet last year. We also bought a '21 for more
advanced training.
Keeping costs down may be why we have grown every year including the
downturn and have almost 30 juniors.
Not fancy , but it works.
All that said, building a 2-33 today would not be an economical thing
to do.
FWIW
UH

[Frank Whiteley]

On Sep 15, 12:26*pm, Westbender > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 12:57*pm, bildan > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 15, 8:59*am, Westbender > wrote:
>
> > > You guys throw around these ideas that we should just do away with
> > > 2-33 and train with new DG's and ASK21's. Have you ever considered how
> > > many smaller clubs there are that cannot afford to do such a thing? If
> > > you're willing to donate the money to our club for a new ASK21, we'd
> > > be happy to accomodate your idea.
>
> > Yes, we have thought about it - a lot.
>
> Great! Email me offline and I'll give you the address to send the
> check...

An SSA Clubs & Chapters Committee 'best practice' is for clubs to
pursue a 501c(3) determination, making charitable donations possible.
At least 20 SSA chapters, including some of the largest, have such a
determination.

Forward planning saves a lot. See this Strategic Planning pdf
http://www.soaringchapters.org/conventions/2006/Strategic_Planning_Glider_Clubs_V5.pdf

and this presentation on bringing your club into the 21st Century and
delivering on the promise of soaring. poor video, good audio and
content
http://www.soaringchapters.org/seminars/r2_2003/region2_century21.wmv

Frank Whiteley

[Frank Whiteley]

On Sep 15, 1:18*pm, JS > wrote:
> Good points by all.
> * There is nothing that speaks or even whispers "future" (see the
> subject line) about a 2-33, so I think it's only mentioned due to
> economy. As Bill suggests, it's an antiquated plan and does not take
> into consideration young pilot mentality as Noel explained. We need to
> listen to more "junior" pilots, and not just assume they're
> inexperienced etc.
> * Contrasting, but certainly not a primary trainer... The Arcus
> screams "FUTURE".
> * My club trains using aero tow (1x) and winch (2x) launching in a
> Puchatek, then solo in the Puchatek. Solo in Junior. Dual in G103,
> solo in it. Then possibly solo in Jantar Standard or dual in Twin
> Astir. Other ships to move up to are LS-7, LS-6, and Duo XT. All kept
> in hangars, with tail tow equipment and instruments like you'd expect.
> Not a one without a radio, audio vario or FLARM (there's a FLARM in
> the Callair too). Everything but the Junior has a flight computer /
> GPS data logger.
> * Like owning a house, aircraft ownership requires more than routine
> maintenance. If you don't make upgrades periodically, your home or
> fleet may look OK to you but will look outdated to others.
> * I have e-mailed Scheibe Aircraft (still producing the Motorfalke) to
> see if there is any truth to the rumor that they will reintroduce the
> SF-34. I know of only one in the USA, at Moriarty, NM. Believe it used
> to be in Greensboro, NC or was that another one? But it will likely
> cost as much as an AS-K21.
> * In Australia, the bulk of glider pilots are referred to as "OFITTH",
> meaning "Old Farts In Terry Towel Hats". We all need to stop thinking
> like an OFITTH.
> Jim

How do you like the Puchatek? OBTW, that's the Krosno KR-03a AKA
Peregrine I mentioned previously.

Frank

[Kevin Christner]

On Sep 15, 12:58*pm, wrote:
> On Sep 15, 11:13*am, Kevin Christner >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have spent enough time instructing to see two types of students,
> > Schweizer trained and everyone else. *Place these two types in an
> > ASK-21. *Schweizer trained students often lack refined control
> > coordination and almost always have little ability to control pitch
> > and speed properly. *The other students seem to do much better. *The
> > Schweizer simply does not require the refined control of more modern
> > gliders to be flown in a way that seems coordinated. *Being trained in
> > a Schweizer typically means you will need to be totally retrained to
> > fly anything else, and the bad habits first learned will often creep
> > back.
>
> > Find me one world team member that thinks primary training in a
> > Schweizer is a good idea. *I doubt you'll have any glowing advocates.
>
> > KJC
>
> > You found one. I train in 2-33's every weekend I'm not racing. I completely disagree about skills as they relate to what glider is used. That is a function of good instructing much more than the platform.
>
> Would I like it to be more comfortable in the back? You betcha!
> All this said, our 2-33 fleet still provides economical, weather
> tolerant, safe, durable service.
> We added another to our fleet last year. We also bought a '21 for more
> advanced training.
> Keeping costs down may be why we have grown every year including the
> downturn and have almost 30 juniors.
> Not fancy , but it works.
> All that said, building a 2-33 today would not be an economical thing
> to do.
> FWIW
> UH

I should rephrase my premise from "a good idea" to "the best option"
which was the intent behind the statement. Costs aside, I don't think
you'd choose the 2-33 over the K-21 for any purpose, but I could be
missing something.

In regards to equipment vs. instruction I stated previously
"Ultimately this is not an argument about 2-33's vs. K-21s, but rather
an argument about the pitiful state of glider training in the US."
Perhaps I've placed too much blame on the glider fleet and not enough
on the instructor base. I would have hoped this was not the case.

[Tony V]

Surfer! wrote:

Here we go again, the recurring 2-33 "religious" argument. :-) For the
record, I learned in a 2-33 and it's not my favorite trainer.


> "JS" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The one redeeming quality of the 2-33 "Dragmaster" is that it laughs
>> at anything roughly resembling a landing.
>
> However I suspect there could be a substantial amount of retraining
> required to fly other more slippery ships...


And hence my main problem with the 2-33. The 2-33 will tolerate
sloppiness and abuse that no other glider will let you get away with.
I prefer to instruct in a glider that handles more like the ship that
the student will transition into. It may take a bit longer, but that's
OK. Retraining takes a long time and the learning "law of primacy"
dictates that when the stuff hits the fan, pilots will revert to what
they learned first.

What else is wrong with the 2-33? An incomplete list would include
- not enough leg room in either seat. I hate turning with
the stick *under* my knee.
- lethargic roll rate.
- Poor visibility from the rear seat - teaching someone to
soar in a gaggle is scary.
- ineffective trim - unless the front seater is heavy, you're
still applying significant forward stick pressure on tow even
with full forward trim.
- ineffective spoilers (but it does slip GREAT!).
- generally poor ergonomics.
- doesn't spin well.

What's good about the 2-33:
- it's cheap
- anybody can repair it
- it's built like a tank. If a student is going to crash, I want
him to be in a 2-33.
- doesn't spin well (yeah, I know).

Sex does sell..... the sport, I mean. :-) Sure many of us would have
started soaring a manhole cover, if that were possible. But for others,
who have an inkling and come to the field to see what it's like, the
2-33 is not a good sales tool.

That said, some people simply prefer the 2-33 and I'm OK with that. For
2 seaters, my club has 3 L23s, 1 Puchacz, and 1 2-33. If a student wants
to fly the 2-33, I'll be in the back seat.

Tony V. "6N"

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:35:39 +0100, Surfer! wrote:

>> AS-K21 gets my vote for this job. Comfortable, sturdy, reasonable
>> handling. Available new or used. Great support. Jim
>
Goes xc well too, in the right hands. Our summer course instructors have
taken their more advanced students on o/r flights to turn points 50-80 km
away on suitable days. Both these gents are regular XC pilots too. No
K-21 landouts to date.


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

[Berry[_2_]]

In article
>,
bildan > wrote:

> On Sep 14, 12:44*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> > On Sep 14, 9:47*am, RN > wrote:
> >
> > > The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at
> > > alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we
> > > will need.
> >


For a training on a budget, it's really hard to beat a Ka-13 or Ka-7,
except that they have fairly small cockpits. We sold off our Ka-7
because about half the folks who came to us for training just could not
fit their legs under the panel and/or were too heavy. Still, that Ka-7
soldiers on in a commercial training operation today!

[[email protected]]

On Sep 15, 1:50*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 10:14*am, "Surfer!" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > But since the Schweizer seems to be the training ship of choice in most US
> > clubs that shouldn't be a surprise. *It's certainly not (IMHO) an
> > endorsement of them.
>
> I couldn't agree more! *As a "younger" glider pilot myself (29 when I
> started), let me make a few assertions:
>
> 1) Do you think you can get *ANY* young person interested in soaring
> if what they see is a 2-33? After playing any modern computer game?
> After watching movies like "The Fast and the Furious"? *The 2-33 looks
> like a dog and flies slowly. *Those of you who talk about being "happy
> just to be in the air" have to realize what a tiny minority you are -
> and that your numbers are dwindling. *People these days are often
> flying hundreds of miles per hour in jetliners before they're 10.
> They're mixing it up in 60 - 80mph traffic by the time they're 15 or
> 16 (and even their economy cars have power windows, power door locks,
> keyless remote, and a dock for their Phone/MP3-player). *They're
> playing with Google Maps and Google Earth - seeing the world from that
> vantage point is not new to them. *Being in the air is not new to
> them. *They don't know what they're missing; but they *are* going to
> have a whole lot of preconceived notions about it, and their
> experiences are going to bias them towards wanting something that's
> fast, sleek, exciting, modern, high-tech, etc. *NONE of those things
> apply to the 2-33. *If you want to turn a young person OFF, show then
> a 2-33! *They'll either stick to Flight Simulators or they'll walk
> over to fly powered airplanes - you know, "the exciting and fast kind
> of flying". *Oh, and how many young (under 40), energetic instructors
> are there in the USA? *Right. *So from the perspective of a young
> person (under 35, let's say), their introduction to soaring is a 50 or
> 60 year old guy standing next to a glider that's of equal age. *Yeah,
> really enticing! :-P *Good luck with that, folks. *At least an L-13 or
> L-23 looks sleeker (by comparison) and flies a whole lot better.
>
> 2) One more thing: the 2-33 is a favorite because it is cheap, and it
> is easy to fix/maintain (especially for FBOs/commercial operators).
> Notice that neither of these has ANYTHING to do with flying qualities
> or its value in training good pilot skills! *I started in an L-13,
> made the jump to a 1-36 quite easily, and then had to go drop back to
> a 2-33 for my license. *The 2-33 was HELL. *Sloppy controls, TITANIC
> throw required to get a good response, and my big legs (I'm 6'1" and
> 215 lbs) meant that I had to lift my leg and tuck the stick under the
> back of my knee to get full aileron deflection - NOT the safest way to
> fly! *The 2-33 is nothing like the advanced metal & glass I have flown
> since. *Its usefulness (if it has any) is restricted to very early
> primary training, since you can't use it to develop advanced skills
> (such as flying XC or good thermal-centering in anything representing
> the same manner you work thermals in a more modern/capable ship).
>
> --Noel

My club has 25 junior members that must be blind according to your
criteria. They didn't know they weren't supposed to have fun and enjoy
learning to fly in th 2-33.
Our 2-33's fly all day every day it's flyable. We had to get a 3rd due
to demand.
Our '21 flies much less than that.
And our '21, which we got at a favorable price, cost twice what we
have in our 3 2-33's.
Cost does matter in smaller club to the point of being critical to
survival.
Clubs depending on Blaniks are really challanged now. Who knows for
how long. Do we think they all will go buy '21's. I doubt it. They
already wanted 21's and couldn't afford them.
UH

[bildan]

Tony V wrote:

> What else is wrong with the 2-33? An incomplete list would include
> - not enough leg room in either seat. *I hate turning with
> * *the stick *under* my knee.
> - lethargic roll rate.
> - Poor visibility from the rear seat - teaching someone to
> * *soar in a gaggle is scary.
> - ineffective trim - unless the front seater is heavy, you're
> * *still applying significant forward stick pressure on tow even
> * *with full forward trim.
> - ineffective spoilers (but it does slip GREAT!).
> - generally poor ergonomics.
> - doesn't spin well.

I would add that instructors with big feet (me) have nowhere to put
them except on the rudder pedals. I know students must hate that.

Have you noticed how students seem to drag the right wing far more
than the left on landing? It's because they can't get any left
aileron with the spoilers open whether they lift their leg or not -
the spoiler handle is in the way.

>
> What's good about the 2-33:
> - it's cheap
> - anybody can repair it
> - it's built like a tank. If a student is going to crash, I want
> * *him to be in a 2-33.
> - doesn't spin well (yeah, I know).
>
I wonder if you've priced aircraft welding, sheet metal repair or
fabric work lately. Any significant damage to a 2-33 will cost far
more to repair that the glider will be worth afterward. Old geezers
like me who know how to weld 4130 thinwall tubes and own a pair of
pinking shears are getting really hard to find. If those streamlined
aluminum wing struts suffers damage, you're probably out of luck.
Nobody makes them anymore.

I'm not confident the "tank" reputation holds either. It's not hard
to imagine a broken tube penetrating the cockpit - and the pilot
within. If that tube cuts a leg artery the student is in serious
trouble. I know of one such fatality when the skid kicked up a stick
which penetrated the fabric and the students leg.

Given the increasing girth of pilots these days it doesn't happen
often but if you load a 2-33 to the rear CG limit, it will spin - with
alarming suddenness.

[noel.wade]

On Sep 15, 4:40*pm, wrote:

> My club has 25 junior members that must be blind according to your
> criteria. They didn't know they weren't supposed to have fun and enjoy
> learning to fly in th 2-33.

UH -

1) Note that I didn't participate in any comments about the '21 or the
other expensive glass ships in this thread.

2) I'm guessing your club has other things that are making it
attractive to younger members! Either you have great instruction, or
a clear stepping-stone approach to flying better ships in the future,
or super-cheap rates, or they were recruited by existing club members
or some club outreach program that excited them, or something along
those lines. They did not drop in to the club from nowhere, see the
2-33, and decide it was a good idea.

I'd love to know how your club is attracting so many students; and I'd
also love to know how many of them go on to complete their license and
continue to fly with the club.

--Noel

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 9/15/2010 12:12 PM, Kevin Christner wrote:

> Bob,
>
> I'm glad you realized that 2-point approaches are the best way avoid
> land out damage. Unfortunately, it appears a large portion of US
> pilots disagree with you!

Regrettably, I wouldn't seriously try to argue this particular point because
my working suspicion is your contention is accurate. I've encountered 'a
not-insignificant percentage' of experienced XC pilots - including some
actively involved in racing - I've never seen practice a low-energy landing,
and some who've (gasp) actively pooh-poohed the desirability of having the
skill. Admittedly, the bulk of my experience has been on the eastern side of
the intermountain west (where large fields are often easily found), but the
pooh-pooh attitude has always astounded/worried me.

>
> I appreciate your argument regarding primacy, but for most I'm not
> sure it works like that. Regardless of how much time you have to
> think about an off-field landing, they are still 'stressful' enough
> that reversion to bad habits is highly likely to occur.

I agree that most folks' initial OFL 'will be' high-stress (in the actual
sweaty-palmed sense), but have for years within my club put forth the
reasoning that it doesn't need to be in an 'actual risk to you/the plane' sense.

(Ref.: http://soarboulder.org/stories/kissing-tips-1)
(...verbose, written in the '90's for my club's newsletter, personally
out-of-date, cited simply as supporting evidence...)

I also agree that initial OFL's are the place where all the mistakes will be
'practiced' (e.g. too-close-in downwinds, too high speeds, less-than-good
field selections in the face of better nearby options, etc.). My club
(sensibly, IMHO) actively encourages pilot-skill-set expansion via XC
instruction and a (22 consecutive years and counting) XC camp in benign
landout country. But the fact remains, Joe Pilot is the one who ultimately
does most of the (non-instructor-aided) skill-set-expansion, and 'bull
sessions' are a huge part of the experience.

(Ref.: http://soarboulder.org/newsletters See September's edition)


Another point
> would be bad things very rarely happen with the first bad decision.
> Too much energy at touchdown is often a result of a pattern flown to
> quickly. I can't count the number of times I've gone up with someone
> who flew their pattern 5-8kts over best L/D speed in benign
> conditions. When you ask why its because "its safer." This may be
> "safe" but it I doubt it's "safer" at the time and it certainly won't
> be "safer" when you are going into a 400ft field and a pattern speed 4
> or 5 knots below L/D is called for. The benign conditions would have
> been a perfect time to practice a minimum energy pattern - but then
> again, they've never heard of that.

I've no doubt we're on the same page, here. Where we might differ is that I
don't see 'mandated instruction' as curing the underlying problem, which (I
believe) is with Joe Pilot's basic attitude and approach to his or her soaring
world. My own approach is to gently try and help them expand their world-view
so they'll understand that any world view is (always) incomplete, *and* want
to expand their own...whether via dual instruction, or self-practice or any
other sensible method that works for them. That said, I suspect that some
people ARE entirely entrenched in their (less-than-good-for-them/their-ship)
thinking...but my approach is to act as if no one is, meaning my personal
radar routinely looks for opportunities to help others 'see the light' even if
they've previously proven blind.

> And, if we accept primacy does not occur to "nerves of steel"
> attempting his first off field landing, I'd still preferred he has
> lots of practice on low energy approaches followed by minimum energy
> landings. Ultimately this is not an argument about 2-33's vs. K-21s,
> but rather an argument about the pitiful state of glider training in
> the US.

I guess I'm not so convinced the problem can be laid at the door of 'poor
training'. I'm inclined to suppose ultimate responsibility lies within the
pilot population itself. Not that I'm saying dual instruction isn't
fundamentally important...because it unarguably is *vitally* so...just that I
don't see any proposed 'better instructional approach' as likely to have
significant/measurable effects on the landout-crunch-world. Consider the
dismal - and enduring down the decades - record of inadvertent stall-spins in
the pattern; a reasonable argument can be made that 'better instruction' has
had exactly zero effect on the normalized annual death rate (whether we're
talking glider or power worlds).

In the glider-OFL-world, we could be up against human nature...

But even if we are, I believe it shouldn't diminish our attempts to educate
wannabe XC pilots in the 'best practices' of OFLs. Why? Because *some* WILL
'get it!' If dual instruction can play a part (and I agree its competent
availability varies widely in the U.S. club scene), then those pilots who can
avail themselves of it are indeed luckier than those who cannot. Options are good.

Regards,
Bob W.

[Westbender]

On Sep 15, 6:49*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 4:40*pm, wrote:
>
> > My club has 25 junior members that must be blind according to your
> > criteria. They didn't know they weren't supposed to have fun and enjoy
> > learning to fly in th 2-33.
>
> UH -
>
> 1) Note that I didn't participate in any comments about the '21 or the
> other expensive glass ships in this thread.
>
> 2) I'm guessing your club has other things that are making it
> attractive to younger members! *Either you have great instruction, or
> a clear stepping-stone approach to flying better ships in the future,
> or super-cheap rates, or they were recruited by existing club members
> or some club outreach program that excited them, or something along
> those lines. *They did not drop in to the club from nowhere, see the
> 2-33, and decide it was a good idea.
>
> I'd love to know how your club is attracting so many students; and I'd
> also love to know how many of them go on to complete their license and
> continue to fly with the club.
>
> --Noel

Is it really that hard to believe the 2-33 didn't scare everyone away?
Come one, why don't we stop this silly nonsense about how the 2-33 is
the reason why soaring isn't growing. For goodness sakes. Then there's
the "have to be retrained" boloney after learning to fly in a 2-33. It
serves the purpose it was designed to do very well. Basic training.

I don't recall a single prospective member of our club that came
calling because they saw a "cool looking ship" at the field, or backed
away after seeing the 2-33. All of our students are always clamoring
for instruction time in our trainers. They could care less about the
glass ships that are rigging/derigging/departing/arriving when
training flights are operating. They're not stupid. They all know the
2-33 is not the end of the line. It's only the beginning. If you'd
take the time to talk to new students or even prospective ones,
they'll tell you what their expectations and their intentions are. I
garantee you they understand the concept of basic training and
progression.

By the way, our club has a "stepping-stone" approach to better
performing ships, but we can only afford so much. 2 2-33s, 1 2-22, 2
1-26s, 1 1-34, 1 L23. Not all of our ships are on the flightline due
to instructor shortages (that's another discussion). Our students are
always eyeing the single-place ships and a couple of them already
purchased their own ships. Although they're keeping them in the barn
until they're ready to fly them. That's because they're intelligent
people and not lured around by a carrot dangling on a stick.

If we have to resort to "eye-candy" to lure people to soaring, then
it's not necessarily about flying is it? Maybe it's just a niche and
nothing more.

I wonder how many students are more likely to follow through and
become a licensed pilot or even an owner? One attracted by something
shiny? Or one that is driven by the desire to fly?

[ray conlon]

On Sep 15, 10:28*pm, Westbender > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 6:49*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 15, 4:40*pm, wrote:
>
> > > My club has 25 junior members that must be blind according to your
> > > criteria. They didn't know they weren't supposed to have fun and enjoy
> > > learning to fly in th 2-33.
>
> > UH -
>
> > 1) Note that I didn't participate in any comments about the '21 or the
> > other expensive glass ships in this thread.
>
> > 2) I'm guessing your club has other things that are making it
> > attractive to younger members! *Either you have great instruction, or
> > a clear stepping-stone approach to flying better ships in the future,
> > or super-cheap rates, or they were recruited by existing club members
> > or some club outreach program that excited them, or something along
> > those lines. *They did not drop in to the club from nowhere, see the
> > 2-33, and decide it was a good idea.
>
> > I'd love to know how your club is attracting so many students; and I'd
> > also love to know how many of them go on to complete their license and
> > continue to fly with the club.
>
> > --Noel
>
> Is it really that hard to believe the 2-33 didn't scare everyone away?
> Come one, why don't we stop this silly nonsense about how the 2-33 is
> the reason why soaring isn't growing. For goodness sakes. Then there's
> the "have to be retrained" boloney after learning to fly in a 2-33. It
> serves the purpose it was designed to do very well. Basic training.
>
> I don't recall a single prospective member of our club that came
> calling because they saw a "cool looking ship" at the field, or backed
> away after seeing the 2-33. All of our students are always clamoring
> for instruction time in our trainers. They could care less about the
> glass ships that are rigging/derigging/departing/arriving when
> training flights are operating. They're not stupid. They all know the
> 2-33 is not the end of the line. It's only the beginning. If you'd
> take the time to talk to new students or even prospective ones,
> they'll tell you what their expectations and their intentions are. I
> garantee you they understand the concept of basic training and
> progression.
>
> By the way, our club has a "stepping-stone" approach to better
> performing ships, but we can only afford so much. 2 2-33s, 1 2-22, 2
> 1-26s, 1 1-34, 1 L23. Not all of our ships are on the flightline due
> to instructor shortages (that's another discussion). Our students are
> always eyeing the single-place ships and a couple of them already
> purchased their own ships. Although they're keeping them in the barn
> until they're ready to fly them. That's because they're intelligent
> people and not lured around by a carrot dangling on a stick.
>
> If we have to resort to "eye-candy" to lure people to soaring, then
> it's not necessarily about flying is it? Maybe it's just a niche and
> nothing more.
>
> I wonder how many students are more likely to follow through and
> become a licensed pilot or even an owner? One attracted by something
> shiny? Or one that is driven by the desire to fly?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If the constant increase in cost of the training fleet is the solution
to the low numbers of glider pilots, why aren't we up to about 250,000
new glider pilots in the USA fling from about 1000 new clubs/
gliderports in the fleet of 75,000 new glass 2 seaters by now?

[Westbender]

> If the constant increase in cost of the training fleet is the solution
> to the low numbers of glider pilots, why aren't we up to about 250,000
> new glider pilots in the USA *fling from about 1000 new clubs/
> gliderports in the fleet of 75,000 new glass 2 seaters by now?


That's easy. It's because we're not all rushing out to buy new Duos
and DG1000s! Once we do that, all will be fixed in the soaring world.

Not to mention the improved health all the small clubs (that are just
getting by) will experience when they take on the huge debt necessary
to make such purchases.

It's a no-brainer!

[ray conlon]

On Sep 15, 10:51*pm, Westbender > wrote:
> > If the constant increase in cost of the training fleet is the solution
> > to the low numbers of glider pilots, why aren't we up to about 250,000
> > new glider pilots in the USA *fling from about 1000 new clubs/
> > gliderports in the fleet of 75,000 new glass 2 seaters by now?
>
> That's easy. It's because we're not all rushing out to buy new Duos
> and DG1000s! Once we do that, all will be fixed in the soaring world.
>
> Not to mention the improved health all the small clubs (that are just
> getting by) will experience when they take on the huge debt necessary
> to make such purchases.
>
> It's a no-brainer!

In 40 years of fooling with gliders I don't ever remember anyone
leving the club because we weren't charging enough in fees...and I
don't ever recall seeing a Lambrogini dealer on every street corner
either...

[JS]

Frank, the Puchatek AKA "Puke Attack" is a decent trainer. Pretty
rugged, roomy, good visibility and comfort. Looks/feels a bit
utilitarian. You can instruct speed to fly, spins and low energy
touchdown. It winches nicely. There's even an instrument panel in the
back seat and a usable baggage compartment. The wheel brake is a
separate pull handle.
They've had a few ADs, think the latest was airbrake actuators. The
lack of a continued airworthiness (was it actually 5000 hours?)
inspection program will be the end of them.
Barry Aviation (Peregrine) haven't updated their website in many
years.
Jim

On Sep 15, 1:32*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
> How do you like the Puchatek? *OBTW, that's the Krosno KR-03a AKA
> Peregrine I mentioned previously.
>
> Frank

[[email protected]]

Tom Mara and Bob Whelan;

THANK YOU for being the 'VOICES OF REASON" on this thread! (With
apologies to BK and TC)

As for the rest of you, how about post on the FAA Blanik AD comment
page to inform them of the effect the AD will have on 1/5 of the
training fleet, as most of the students I know can't afford north of
$60 just to get thier rating in Modern glass, and will cease their
training as a result. Your comments here outnumber those on the FAA
page by three to one!

If not able to do so, I imagine the combined hot air on this thread
could be directed vertically with measurable effect!

aerodine

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sep 15, 10:27*pm, wrote:
> Tom Mara and Bob Whelan;
>
> THANK YOU for being the 'VOICES OF REASON" on this thread! (With
> apologies to BK and TC)
>
> As for the rest of you, how about post on the FAA Blanik AD comment
> page to inform them of the effect the AD will have on 1/5 of the
> training fleet, as most of the students I know can't afford north of
> $60 just to get thier rating in Modern glass, and will cease their
> training as a result. *Your comments here outnumber those on the FAA
> page by three to one!
>
> If not able to do so, I imagine the combined hot air on this thread
> could be directed vertically with measurable effect!
>
> aerodine

I'm missing the point of just telling the FAA what the effect of the
AD will be on grounding L13 fleet -- I kinda suspect people directly
involved at the FAA know. The FAA seems pretty set that a testing
procedure needs to be developed. They seem to have invested a fair
amount of time and effort lookign at this already and went out of
their way in the recent letter to the SSA to present a nice report.
What is it you actually want people to ask the FAA to do? That the FAA
engineer a test procedure on their own? That they provide more help
(what exactly?) to develop that in collaboration? That they try to
pressure the LAK to do something? That they just accept the past
visual inspection AD?

Thanks

Darryl

[Frank Whiteley]

On Sep 15, 9:42*pm, JS > wrote:
> * Frank, the Puchatek AKA "Puke Attack" is a decent trainer. Pretty
> rugged, roomy, good visibility and comfort. Looks/feels a bit
> utilitarian. You can instruct speed to fly, spins and low energy
> touchdown. It winches nicely. There's even an instrument panel in the
> back seat and a usable baggage compartment. The wheel brake is a
> separate pull handle.
> * They've had a few ADs, think the latest was airbrake actuators. The
> lack of a continued airworthiness (was it actually 5000 hours?)
> inspection program will be the end of them.
> Barry Aviation (Peregrine) haven't updated their website in many
> years.
> Jim
>
Thanks for the comments.

True, but they are still hoping to build them and service the existing
fleet.

Frank

[Frank Whiteley]

On Sep 15, 8:28*pm, Westbender > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 6:49*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 15, 4:40*pm, wrote:
>
> > > My club has 25 junior members that must be blind according to your
> > > criteria. They didn't know they weren't supposed to have fun and enjoy
> > > learning to fly in th 2-33.
>
> > UH -
>
> > 1) Note that I didn't participate in any comments about the '21 or the
> > other expensive glass ships in this thread.
>
> > 2) I'm guessing your club has other things that are making it
> > attractive to younger members! *Either you have great instruction, or
> > a clear stepping-stone approach to flying better ships in the future,
> > or super-cheap rates, or they were recruited by existing club members
> > or some club outreach program that excited them, or something along
> > those lines. *They did not drop in to the club from nowhere, see the
> > 2-33, and decide it was a good idea.
>
> > I'd love to know how your club is attracting so many students; and I'd
> > also love to know how many of them go on to complete their license and
> > continue to fly with the club.
>
> > --Noel
>
> Is it really that hard to believe the 2-33 didn't scare everyone away?
> Come one, why don't we stop this silly nonsense about how the 2-33 is
> the reason why soaring isn't growing. For goodness sakes. Then there's
> the "have to be retrained" boloney after learning to fly in a 2-33. It
> serves the purpose it was designed to do very well. Basic training.
>
> I don't recall a single prospective member of our club that came
> calling because they saw a "cool looking ship" at the field, or backed
> away after seeing the 2-33. All of our students are always clamoring
> for instruction time in our trainers. They could care less about the
> glass ships that are rigging/derigging/departing/arriving when
> training flights are operating. They're not stupid. They all know the
> 2-33 is not the end of the line. It's only the beginning. If you'd
> take the time to talk to new students or even prospective ones,
> they'll tell you what their expectations and their intentions are. I
> garantee you they understand the concept of basic training and
> progression.
>
> By the way, our club has a "stepping-stone" approach to better
> performing ships, but we can only afford so much. 2 2-33s, 1 2-22, 2
> 1-26s, 1 1-34, 1 L23. Not all of our ships are on the flightline due
> to instructor shortages (that's another discussion). Our students are
> always eyeing the single-place ships and a couple of them already
> purchased their own ships. Although they're keeping them in the barn
> until they're ready to fly them. That's because they're intelligent
> people and not lured around by a carrot dangling on a stick.
>
> If we have to resort to "eye-candy" to lure people to soaring, then
> it's not necessarily about flying is it? Maybe it's just a niche and
> nothing more.
>
> I wonder how many students are more likely to follow through and
> become a licensed pilot or even an owner? One attracted by something
> shiny? Or one that is driven by the desire to fly?

I was fortunate that my first glider flight in the early 1970's was 1)
a soaring flight and not a sled ride and 2) in an L-13 and not a
2-33. Had either 1 or 2 been different, e.g. sled ride or 2-22/2-33,
I may not have become interested and gone hang gliding instead.
Before I took such a flight, I studied the topic in my local library
which held the 1967 NG issue of Striedeck's flight, copies of Soaring
Magazine, and several soaring books, include "Old Dog" Wolters "Once
Upon a Thermal". During my university years, somehow I missed Star
Trek and "The Boy Who Flew with Condors". You see, I liked fast boats
and faster motorcycles.

I know several instructors that will not get in the back of a 2-33.
Are you sure it's not the same problem?

Did you watch the video at the link I posted about bringing your club
into the 21st Century?

Are you sure they are stepping stones and not hurdles? See the above
referenced presentation. In effect what they achieved was the same
utilization with fewer gliders. Costs of said gliders were not
significantly different. Insurance costs probably went down. The
FSDO reported a higher standard of pilot check rides. The chapter had
a waiting list for memberships.

Not so much about eye-candy, but more about delivering on the promise
of soaring. I have flown 23/1, 30/1, 40/1 and 50/1. The promise is
not at 23/1. Jean Richard from Canada used to post on RAS for years.
An observation he contributed years ago was that 28/1 soars twice a
much as 23/1 in a ground launch training environment.

A New Zealand study presented at an SSA convention showed member churn
in soaring to be 20%/year everywhere but in the US, where it was 30%.
The reason for the difference was never very clear, but some of us
surmised at the time that 2-33's might be part of the reason, because
many places lacked even your club's stepping stones.

Am I saying crush them all? No. Just plan for the future and roll
over the tin ships to a club lower on the food chain. You are
welcomed to donate your under-utilized, serviceable gliders to the
Collegiate Soaring Assocation, a 501c(3) charitable soaring
organization.

Synthetic ropes make winching 2-22's and 2-33's much more reasonable
since they don't have to lift 200 or more pounds of wire rope.
Several flights for the cost of an aero tow. One of our club members
had 250 hours off the winch by age 16, then they put him in a
Messerschmitt so he could self launch;^)

Students are not necessarily youth. Some of the comments were about
what 'youth' expect. At the moment, youth are in short supply at your
chapter, although in abundance at another chapter with some similar
equipment. Youth like to hang out in groups. It's easy to attract
one or two for a while. If ten or twelve are hanging out at the club,
it's easy to get five or six to bring a friend. Some may stick, then
more show up. I think once you get 10-12, it might be a lot easier to
suddenly have many more, unless some grumps chase them away.

Just some ramblings,

Frank Whiteley

[Surfer![_2_]]

Please be more careful in future with how you do the posting. It looks like
I wrote 'here we go again', and I most certainly didn't.

"Tony V" > wrote in message
...
> Surfer! wrote:
>
> Here we go again, the recurring 2-33 "religious" argument. :-) For the
> record, I learned in a 2-33 and it's not my favorite trainer.

[JS]

For your information: A reply from Scheibe Aircraft, not that many
seem interested in modernizing the fleet.
Jim

Yes, that is right that we want to produce the SF 34! At the moment we
adjust the forms and fixtures and we want to start the production in
about 4 weeks. The price will be about EUR 65.900,00 (without
instruments and trailer) + tax and the delivery-time is about 5-6
months. So if you want to fly a SF 34 next season you should order
soon.

If you need more information please tell me.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen kindly regards
Katja Sammet

SCHEIBE-AIRCRAFT-GMBH
Am Flugplatz 5
D-73540 Heubach

Tel. 0049 7173 184286
Fax 0049 7173 185587
www.scheibe-aircraft.de

[noel.wade]

Let me try to make my point by using an analogy:

You're walking around downtown at lunch. You're hungry. There are
many restaurants around that will serve you food. Tucked into the
corner of a building you see a dodgy-looking sandwich shop that
appears to be old, small, rusty, and with fading/peeling paint on it.

How likely are you to walk in and sample the food?
How likely are you to walk in and tell the owner that he'd get more
business if he just spruced the place up and put out better signage?

Aren't you FAR more likely to just keep walking down the road and eat
somewhere else?

Anyone looked at the hang-gliding & paragliding community lately? Huh
- seems like its got a lot of youth involved in it and I keep hearing
about how their numbers are doing OK. Anyone hear a hang-glider
instructor talk fondly about about using a 30-year-old Rogallo wing to
instruct with? How about a Paragliding instructor wishing he was
still using an early-model 'chute (you know, the ones that were more
prone to collapses)?

I'm not laying all of soaring's troubles at the feet of the 2-33 and
I'm not saying that the ship is worthless. But I AM saying that I
think clubs should consider multiple angles when selecting their
training/club aircraft. Looking at it purely from the standpoint of
"dollars to acquire" or "dollars for routine maintenance" is myopic
and ignores a lot of other things. There's a reason businesses look
at "total cost of ownership" and "opportunity cost" when deciding to
buy big-ticket items.

--Noel

[jimboffin]

On 15 Sep, 16:13, Kevin Christner > wrote:
> I have spent enough time instructing to see two types of students,
> Schweizer trained and everyone else. *Place these two types in an
> ASK-21. *Schweizer trained students often lack refined control
> coordination and almost always have little ability to control pitch
> and speed properly. *The other students seem to do much better. *The
> Schweizer simply does not require the refined control of more modern
> gliders to be flown in a way that seems coordinated. *Being trained in
> a Schweizer typically means you will need to be totally retrained to
> fly anything else, and the bad habits first learned will often creep
> back.
>
> Find me one world team member that thinks primary training in a
> Schweizer is a good idea. *I doubt you'll have any glowing advocates.
>
> KJC
>
> On Sep 15, 7:34*am, Tony > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > The 2-33 is suffering the same metal fatigue problems in it's wings as
> > > the L-13.
>
> > Is this statement based on actual issues with 2-33 wings or just the
> > fact that "it is metal, it will fatigue eventually"?
>
> > I see no mention in any of the Schweizer Service Bulletins about
> > issues with 2-22 or 2-33 wing structure and have never heard of any
> > problems either.
>
> > I notice that 3 or 4 of the USA World Team members trained in
> > Schweizers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

At Booker we use both K21s and K13s. K21s are great for air experience
and early handling as they are safe and easy to fly. Added bonus is
they look modern and don't turn off the punter. The K13s are slightly
harder to fly and spin. As such they are better for training pilots to
solo level. We also own a Duo which is a delight to fly and excellent
for XC and competition training. It is not as robust as the 21, much
slippier with weaker brakes so harder to land, and the view from the
back is not as good. If we were buying another trainer it would
probably be a K21.

[Tony V]

Surfer! wrote:
> Please be more careful in future with how you do the posting. It looks
> like I wrote 'here we go again', and I most certainly didn't.


Yup, my bad. So sorry.

T


>
> "Tony V" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Surfer! wrote:
>>
>> Here we go again, the recurring 2-33 "religious" argument. :-) For the
>> record, I learned in a 2-33 and it's not my favorite trainer.
>
>

[bildan]

On Sep 15, 8:28*pm, Westbender > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 6:49*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 15, 4:40*pm, wrote:
>
> > > My club has 25 junior members that must be blind according to your
> > > criteria. They didn't know they weren't supposed to have fun and enjoy
> > > learning to fly in th 2-33.
>
> > UH -
>
> > 1) Note that I didn't participate in any comments about the '21 or the
> > other expensive glass ships in this thread.
>
> > 2) I'm guessing your club has other things that are making it
> > attractive to younger members! *Either you have great instruction, or
> > a clear stepping-stone approach to flying better ships in the future,
> > or super-cheap rates, or they were recruited by existing club members
> > or some club outreach program that excited them, or something along
> > those lines. *They did not drop in to the club from nowhere, see the
> > 2-33, and decide it was a good idea.
>
> > I'd love to know how your club is attracting so many students; and I'd
> > also love to know how many of them go on to complete their license and
> > continue to fly with the club.
>
> > --Noel
>
> Is it really that hard to believe the 2-33 didn't scare everyone away?
> Come one, why don't we stop this silly nonsense about how the 2-33 is
> the reason why soaring isn't growing. For goodness sakes. Then there's
> the "have to be retrained" boloney after learning to fly in a 2-33. It
> serves the purpose it was designed to do very well. Basic training.
>
> I don't recall a single prospective member of our club that came
> calling because they saw a "cool looking ship" at the field, or backed
> away after seeing the 2-33. All of our students are always clamoring
> for instruction time in our trainers. They could care less about the
> glass ships that are rigging/derigging/departing/arriving when
> training flights are operating. They're not stupid. They all know the
> 2-33 is not the end of the line. It's only the beginning. If you'd
> take the time to talk to new students or even prospective ones,
> they'll tell you what their expectations and their intentions are. I
> garantee you they understand the concept of basic training and
> progression.
>
> By the way, our club has a "stepping-stone" approach to better
> performing ships, but we can only afford so much. 2 2-33s, 1 2-22, 2
> 1-26s, 1 1-34, 1 L23. Not all of our ships are on the flightline due
> to instructor shortages (that's another discussion). Our students are
> always eyeing the single-place ships and a couple of them already
> purchased their own ships. Although they're keeping them in the barn
> until they're ready to fly them. That's because they're intelligent
> people and not lured around by a carrot dangling on a stick.
>
> If we have to resort to "eye-candy" to lure people to soaring, then
> it's not necessarily about flying is it? Maybe it's just a niche and
> nothing more.
>
> I wonder how many students are more likely to follow through and
> become a licensed pilot or even an owner? One attracted by something
> shiny? Or one that is driven by the desire to fly?

Unfortunately, I have seen the crestfallen look on prospective glider
pilots when they first looked at a 2-33 - many, many times. After
retirement, I worked at a commercial glider operation for a couple of
years. They used 2-33's and (tried to) fly 7 days a week.

A club down the field has a sleek fleet glass gliders. After a few
flights in our 2-33's, we'd see our customer training in a club DG or
Grob. I'd say we lost 50% of our students to the club. Speaking with
them, they'd say the 2-33 just wasn't what they were looking for in
the sport - or something much less kind.

The owner of the commercial school could only talk about how cheap the
2-33's were - as they sat unused.

[Andrew Corrigan[_2_]]

One trainer that did not get a lot of focus was the Blanik L23. My
apologies if I missed those comments, but there has been 70 posting and I
might have missed it.

Will the L23 follow the same fate as the L13?

If so, is the reason because the design of the spar for the L23 is the
same as the L13? Or are there other reasons?

Andrew

[Berry[_2_]]

Even if all the Blaniks were put back in the air tomorrow, and everyone
was in love with 2-33's, the fact is, they are all OLD metal ships that
are wearing out. The current Blanik troubles are not going to be the end
of it. We are going to need something to replace the 2-33's and Blaniks.
Whatever the replacements are, they better have big cockpits...

Speaking of cockpit size: How roomy are the SF-25's? Seems like there
are a lot of those, they can self launch, and they are still in
production.

[[email protected]]

On 9/15/2010 3:42 PM, Tim Mara wrote:
> I honestly think everyone is jumping to conclusions far too early....the AD
> on Blanik's will reach a satisfactory conclusion all soon enough .there are
> just too many of these world wide in continuous use and for all practical
> purposes the AD's on these gliders have been few and far between..they are
> still among the best club training gliders available by far..and they are
> affordable...

You have a vested interest in this line of thinking and are just trying
to be optimistic and positive. You are unpacking a shipping container,
with a a "new" used L-13 in it, this morning. <G>

[Jim[_18_]]

On Sep 15, 8:13*am, Kevin Christner > wrote:
> I have spent enough time instructing to see two types of students,
> Schweizer trained and everyone else.


I trained in the 2-33 as a teenager and now fly an ASH-26E, after
three seasons, haven't crashed it.It seems to me that every aircraft
flies differently a good pilot will be able to deal with these
differences. My parents didn't have much money. Working at McDonald's
during high school, the 2-33 was affordable.

The Nimbus 3 is not a great handling aircraft but you don't hear
people calling for them to be melted down.

Many of us that have good jobs have forgotten what it was like to
struggle to pay rent and put food on the table.

I've been spending a lot of money on L13 parts to restore a glider to
teach some kids in our neighborhood to soar. Sadly, that project has
come to an end. Their parents are low paid federal workers and the
blanik would have been an affordable trainer for their kids.

Jim D

[Carl6703[_2_]]

On Sep 15, 12:26*am, JS > wrote:
> The one redeeming quality of the 2-33 "Dragmaster" is that it laughs
> at anything roughly resembling a landing.
> Peregrine Sailplane got a government contract a few years ago and
> forgot about the glider project, including KR-03A support (ie 3000 hr
> life extension).
> The PW-6 has been around for a while. Perhaps it is a decent trainer?
> Ka13 is a lovely glider to fly, but getting old.
> IS28b2 goes nicely but has its share of problems. Never had a go in
> the IS32.
> Bocian? Capstan? Ka-2? At least they fly better than a 2-33.
> Too bad Glasflugel never made a two seater. How about converting 604s?
> Twin Astir is a bit of a truck to fly, but seems to take some abuse.
> Grob twin 2 is not bad, but I've seen a couple with the fuselage
> broken around the landing gear and more with square tail and nose
> wheels.
> Grob twin 3 handles nicer than the 2, know little of it's use as a
> basic trainer.
> The Puchacz is nice to fly, but some people just don't like it.
> Scheibe SF34 is a nice flyer, easy ground handling, great visibility
> front and rear. If the new Scheibe Aircraft puts it back into
> production the 34 could be a winner.
> DG500 isn't bad, not sure about maintenance. DG1000 is better if you
> get the electric landing gear mod and keep the battery charged.
> The Duo really is wonderful, especially the X (haven't flown XL) but
> not cheap. You cannot intentionally spin the original Duos. Great
> support.
> AS-H25 and Nimbus 4D are both very nice for XC training, but not for
> low time pilots.
> AS-K21 gets my vote for this job. Comfortable, sturdy, reasonable
> handling. Availablenew or used. Great support.Jim

Jim,

I'm interested in your comment on the ASK-21: "Available new or used"
I have placed ASK-21 Wanted ads in several US publications and have
received only one reply. That one had been damaged and the useful
load was unacceptable. Are there used K21's in your area? Do you
have any suggestions where I could place a Wanted ad in the UK or
Europe? Thanks for any help.

Carl B

[Peter Scholz[_2_]]

Am 16.09.2010 19:58, Carl6703 wrote:
> On Sep 15, 12:26 am, > wrote:
>> The one redeeming quality of the 2-33 "Dragmaster" is that it laughs
>> at anything roughly resembling a landing.
>> Peregrine Sailplane got a government contract a few years ago and
>> forgot about the glider project, including KR-03A support (ie 3000 hr
>> life extension).
>> The PW-6 has been around for a while. Perhaps it is a decent trainer?
>> Ka13 is a lovely glider to fly, but getting old.
>> IS28b2 goes nicely but has its share of problems. Never had a go in
>> the IS32.
>> Bocian? Capstan? Ka-2? At least they fly better than a 2-33.
>> Too bad Glasflugel never made a two seater. How about converting 604s?
>> Twin Astir is a bit of a truck to fly, but seems to take some abuse.
>> Grob twin 2 is not bad, but I've seen a couple with the fuselage
>> broken around the landing gear and more with square tail and nose
>> wheels.
>> Grob twin 3 handles nicer than the 2, know little of it's use as a
>> basic trainer.
>> The Puchacz is nice to fly, but some people just don't like it.
>> Scheibe SF34 is a nice flyer, easy ground handling, great visibility
>> front and rear. If the new Scheibe Aircraft puts it back into
>> production the 34 could be a winner.
>> DG500 isn't bad, not sure about maintenance. DG1000 is better if you
>> get the electric landing gear mod and keep the battery charged.
>> The Duo really is wonderful, especially the X (haven't flown XL) but
>> not cheap. You cannot intentionally spin the original Duos. Great
>> support.
>> AS-H25 and Nimbus 4D are both very nice for XC training, but not for
>> low time pilots.
>> AS-K21 gets my vote for this job. Comfortable, sturdy, reasonable
>> handling. Availablenew or used. Great support.Jim
>
> Jim,
>
> I'm interested in your comment on the ASK-21: "Available new or used"
> I have placed ASK-21 Wanted ads in several US publications and have
> received only one reply. That one had been damaged and the useful
> load was unacceptable. Are there used K21's in your area? Do you
> have any suggestions where I could place a Wanted ad in the UK or
> Europe? Thanks for any help.
>
> Carl B

Carl,

there are several ASK 21 around € 55000 (+/-) advertised in

http://www.segelflug.de/classifieds/

You can aslo place an ad there to search for one.

Also look in

http://adverts.gliderpilot.net/
--
Peter Scholz
ASW 24 JE

[Phil Umphres]

On Sep 14, 10:47*am, RN > wrote:
> The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at
> alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we
> will need.
>
> We would be very interested in other club's experience with other
> trainers, and what you are using and planning to use in the future.
>
> Our evaluation parameters include high useful load for heavy students
> and instructors, ease and availability of parts for maintenance and
> repair, *durability for student solo operations, and up front cost .
>
> John

Texas Soaring Association near Dallas bought three ASK-21s, brand
new. Club instructors considered several other options, and chose the
21s over the PW-6 and others. We like them a lot, although they are
hard to spin without putting the spin ballast on the tail. They get a
lot of use and are holding up well. Previously, we had the Puchacz
and the Grobs. Both were satisfactory, but the Puchacz was a better
training aircraft. Downside to the Puchacz is that it is hard to
repair when something breaks on it and parts are damn near impossible
to find in the US.
Phil Umphres

[John Smith]

Carl6703 wrote:
> Do you have any suggestions where I could place a Wanted ad
> in the UK or Europe? Thanks for any help.

One of the better places is the German glider forum. The ads are here:
http://www.segelflug.de/classifieds/
Click on "Biete Doppelsitzer" (double seaters offers)

I see two ASK21 ads. Quite a few Jani are offered, too. While the Janus
is a flapped glider, it performs better than the ASK and isn't difficult
to master. (But it does spin.) I wouldn't hesitate to use it for
advanced student training.

[RL]

Our club does a high volume of training and we see the same thing in
terms of Schweizer trained pilots. There is typically a steep remedial
training curve to build the finesse required to fly something as
docile a Grob 103. Our instructors immediately recognize the
Schweitzer induced habits that have to be unlearned.

When this discussion occurs the cost issue always comes up. But
really, what similar sport do you know that trains with antique
equipment. Golf, skiing, boating, and even regular attendance at
sports events are not inexpensive… and neither is soaring. If people/
clubs really want to fly in decent equipment they become creative and
find a way. My guess is that the perceived low cost of operating
Schewizer equipment probably results in more people leaving the sport
than the assumed high cost of operating good equipment.

Bob


On Sep 15, 11:13*am, Kevin Christner >
wrote:
> I have spent enough time instructing to see two types of students,
> Schweizer trained and everyone else. *Place these two types in an
> ASK-21. *Schweizer trained students often lack refined control
> coordination and almost always have little ability to control pitch
> and speed properly. *The other students seem to do much better. *The
> Schweizer simply does not require the refined control of more modern
> gliders to be flown in a way that seems coordinated. *Being trained in
> a Schweizer typically means you will need to be totally retrained to
> fly anything else, and the bad habits first learned will often creep
> back.
>
> Find me one world team member that thinks primary training in a
> Schweizer is a good idea. *I doubt you'll have any glowing advocates.
>
> KJC
>
> On Sep 15, 7:34*am, Tony > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > The 2-33 is suffering the same metal fatigue problems in it's wings as
> > > the L-13.
>
> > Is this statement based on actual issues with 2-33 wings or just the
> > fact that "it is metal, it will fatigue eventually"?
>
> > I see no mention in any of the Schweizer Service Bulletins about
> > issues with 2-22 or 2-33 wing structure and have never heard of any
> > problems either.
>
> > I notice that 3 or 4 of the USA World Team members trained in
> > Schweizers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[tienshanman]

The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at
alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we
will need.

We would be very interested in other club's experience with other
trainers, and what you are using and planning to use in the future.

Our evaluation parameters include high useful load for heavy students
and instructors, ease and availability of parts for maintenance and
repair, durability for student solo operations, and up front cost .

John

As someone who not long ago finished glider training I can add this: I looked long and hard for an operation that did not use Schweizers. Reason: they are ugly & uncomfortable and just did not fit my idea what soaring is all about. Finally I found a place with a G103 and was happy. If you want to attract people, especially young people you'd better get some hot looking trainers, oh, and preferably some hot looking women. Otherwise you're dead in the water.....and continue projecting the imagine of soaring as an activity for those one step away from a retirement home.

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 02:28 16 September 2010, Westbender wrote:
>
>If we have to resort to "eye-candy" to lure people to soaring, then
>it's not necessarily about flying is it? Maybe it's just a niche and
>nothing more.

Back in the 70s, I transitioned from power into gliders with the 2-33.
The first few flights were just getting used to the whole idea of
powerless flight and how it was done. But then around the third or fourth
flight, the instructor bounced us into a thermal and we climbed up several
thousand feet, as he coached me on the controls. THAT was what sold me on
soaring! Woo-hoo, these things can actually climb! What a wonderment.

Jim Beckman

[bildan]

On Sep 16, 8:13*pm, RL > wrote:
> Our club does a high volume of training and we see the same thing in
> terms of Schweizer trained pilots. There is typically a steep remedial
> training curve to build the finesse required to fly something as
> docile a Grob 103. Our instructors immediately recognize the
> Schweitzer induced habits that have to be unlearned.
>
> When this discussion occurs the cost issue always comes up. But
> really, what similar sport do you know that trains with antique
> equipment. Golf, skiing, boating, and even regular attendance at
> sports events are not inexpensive… and neither is soaring. If people/
> clubs really want to fly in decent equipment they become creative and
> find a way. *My guess is that the perceived low cost of operating
> Schewizer equipment probably results in more people leaving the sport
> than the assumed high cost of operating good equipment.
>
> Bob
>
> On Sep 15, 11:13*am, Kevin Christner >
> wrote:
>
> > I have spent enough time instructing to see two types of students,
> > Schweizer trained and everyone else. *Place these two types in an
> > ASK-21. *Schweizer trained students often lack refined control
> > coordination and almost always have little ability to control pitch
> > and speed properly. *The other students seem to do much better. *The
> > Schweizer simply does not require the refined control of more modern
> > gliders to be flown in a way that seems coordinated. *Being trained in
> > a Schweizer typically means you will need to be totally retrained to
> > fly anything else, and the bad habits first learned will often creep
> > back.
>
> > Find me one world team member that thinks primary training in a
> > Schweizer is a good idea. *I doubt you'll have any glowing advocates.
>
> > KJC
>
> > On Sep 15, 7:34*am, Tony > wrote:
>
> > > > The 2-33 is suffering the same metal fatigue problems in it's wings as
> > > > the L-13.
>
> > > Is this statement based on actual issues with 2-33 wings or just the
> > > fact that "it is metal, it will fatigue eventually"?
>
> > > I see no mention in any of the Schweizer Service Bulletins about
> > > issues with 2-22 or 2-33 wing structure and have never heard of any
> > > problems either.
>
> > > I notice that 3 or 4 of the USA World Team members trained in
> > > Schweizers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

I watched a pilot total a G103. He bounced on the first contact with
the runway but not so the situation was unrecoverable. I was close
enough I could see his face as he mentally shifted to landing the 2-33
he was trained in. He wanted down and stopped RIGHT NOW so he tried to
push a non-existent skid into the runway to stop the Grob. The Grob
responded with its characteristic nose-to-tail PIO bounce and broke
up.

I'd bet if you carefully analyzed every Grob 103 tail boom breaking
accident, in the majority of the cases, you'd find a recently trained
2-33 pilot was at the controls. When I look at a logbook and see
initial training in a 2-33, I know it's going to take some through
remedial training for a Grob transition.

[Surfer![_2_]]

"tienshanman" > wrote in message
...
>
<snip>
> As someone who not long ago finished glider training

Finished glider training? I've got my Silver C and still do training from
time to time. You never, ever finish learning in this game.

[Westbender]

> I could see his face as he mentally shifted to landing the 2-33
> he was trained in.

You must be great to have around the campfire with the stories you
tell...

[Tony[_5_]]

On Sep 17, 11:15*am, Westbender > wrote:
> > *I could see his face as he mentally shifted to landing the 2-33
> > he was trained in.
>
> You must be great to have around the campfire with the stories you
> tell...

I will say that visiting with Bill is one of the highlights come
convention time. There is no shortage of great story tellers in this
sport.

[Brad[_2_]]

On Sep 17, 12:18*am, tienshanman <tienshanman.
> wrote:
> RN;740605 Wrote:
>
> > The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at
> > alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we
> > will need.
>
> > We would be very interested in other club's experience with other
> > trainers, and what you are using and planning to use in the future.
>
> > Our evaluation parameters include high useful load for heavy students
> > and instructors, ease and availability of parts for maintenance and
> > repair, *durability for student solo operations, and up front cost .
>
> > John
>
> As someone who not long ago finished glider training I can add this: I
> looked long and hard for an operation that did not use Schweizers.
> Reason: they are ugly & uncomfortable and just did not fit my idea what
> soaring is all about. Finally I found a place with a G103 and *was
> happy. If you want to attract people, especially young people you'd
> better get some hot looking trainers, oh, and preferably some hot
> looking women. Otherwise you're dead in the water.....and continue
> projecting the imagine of soaring as an activity for those one step away
> from a retirement home.
>
> --
> tienshanman

actually, those pilots "one step away from a retirement home" usually
fly the newest hottest gliders. cruel irony? perhaps.............all
those poor hot chicks out there have to reconsider their options eh?

Brad

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sep 17, 9:24*am, Brad > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 12:18*am, tienshanman <tienshanman.
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > RN;740605 Wrote:
>
> > > The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at
> > > alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we
> > > will need.
>
> > > We would be very interested in other club's experience with other
> > > trainers, and what you are using and planning to use in the future.
>
> > > Our evaluation parameters include high useful load for heavy students
> > > and instructors, ease and availability of parts for maintenance and
> > > repair, *durability for student solo operations, and up front cost ..
>
> > > John
>
> > As someone who not long ago finished glider training I can add this: I
> > looked long and hard for an operation that did not use Schweizers.
> > Reason: they are ugly & uncomfortable and just did not fit my idea what
> > soaring is all about. Finally I found a place with a G103 and *was
> > happy. If you want to attract people, especially young people you'd
> > better get some hot looking trainers, oh, and preferably some hot
> > looking women. Otherwise you're dead in the water.....and continue
> > projecting the imagine of soaring as an activity for those one step away
> > from a retirement home.
>
> > --
> > tienshanman
>
> actually, those pilots "one step away from a retirement home" usually
> fly the newest hottest gliders. cruel irony? perhaps.............all
> those poor hot chicks out there have to reconsider their options eh?
>
> Brad

Nope you already missed them, they are hanging out with the cool hot
paraglider guys.

Darryl

[Tony V]

Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Sep 17, 9:24 am, Brad > wrote:
>> On Sep 17, 12:18 am, tienshanman <tienshanman.
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> RN;740605 Wrote:
>>>> The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at
>>>> alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we
>>>> will need.
>>>> We would be very interested in other club's experience with other
>>>> trainers, and what you are using and planning to use in the future.
>>>> Our evaluation parameters include high useful load for heavy students
>>>> and instructors, ease and availability of parts for maintenance and
>>>> repair, durability for student solo operations, and up front cost .
>>>> John
>>> As someone who not long ago finished glider training I can add this: I
>>> looked long and hard for an operation that did not use Schweizers.
>>> Reason: they are ugly & uncomfortable and just did not fit my idea what
>>> soaring is all about. Finally I found a place with a G103 and was
>>> happy. If you want to attract people, especially young people you'd
>>> better get some hot looking trainers, oh, and preferably some hot
>>> looking women. Otherwise you're dead in the water.....and continue
>>> projecting the imagine of soaring as an activity for those one step away
>>> from a retirement home.
>>> --
>>> tienshanman
>> actually, those pilots "one step away from a retirement home" usually
>> fly the newest hottest gliders. cruel irony? perhaps.............all
>> those poor hot chicks out there have to reconsider their options eh?
>>
>> Brad
>
> Nope you already missed them, they are hanging out with the cool hot
> paraglider guys.


LOL. With apologies to the ladies here, my club shared an airport with a
commercial parachute school for a bunch of years. I can tell you that,
without any doubt, the ....uhmmm ... errr ... "scenery" was *much*
better on their side of the field - especially near the pool.

We also got jaded to the point that an ambulance rolling onto the field
barely got a second glance - but that's another story.

Tony

[sisu1a]

> LOL. With apologies to the ladies here

There's ladies here? O_O

[tienshanman]

On Sep 17, 9:24*am, Brad wrote:
On Sep 17, 12:18*am, tienshanman tienshanman.



wrote:
RN;740605 Wrote:

The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at
alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we
will need.

We would be very interested in other club's experience with other
trainers, and what you are using and planning to use in the future.

Our evaluation parameters include high useful load for heavy students
and instructors, ease and availability of parts for maintenance and
repair, *durability for student solo operations, and up front cost ..

John

As someone who not long ago finished glider training I can add this: I
looked long and hard for an operation that did not use Schweizers.
Reason: they are ugly & uncomfortable and just did not fit my idea what
soaring is all about. Finally I found a place with a G103 and *was
happy. If you want to attract people, especially young people you'd
better get some hot looking trainers, oh, and preferably some hot
looking women. Otherwise you're dead in the water.....and continue
projecting the imagine of soaring as an activity for those one step away
from a retirement home.

--
tienshanman

actually, those pilots "one step away from a retirement home" usually
fly the newest hottest gliders. cruel irony? perhaps.............all
those poor hot chicks out there have to reconsider their options eh?

Brad

Nope you already missed them, they are hanging out with the cool hot
paraglider guys.

Darryl

That's true. One of the very many reasons paragliding has sucked the life blood out of hang gliding and soaring in sailplanes.....

[tienshanman]

;741061']"tienshanman" wrote in message
...

snip
As someone who not long ago finished glider training

Finished glider training? I've got my Silver C and still do training from
time to time. You never, ever finish learning in this game.

Of course, that goes without saying....By "finished" I obviously meant "basic" training. I humbly apologize to the old wise men of the sport for implying that one can ever finish....

[[email protected]]

On Sep 17, 10:45*am, bildan > wrote:
> On Sep 16, 8:13*pm, RL > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Our club does a high volume of training and we see the same thing in
> > terms of Schweizer trained pilots. There is typically a steep remedial
> > training curve to build the finesse required to fly something as
> > docile a Grob 103. Our instructors immediately recognize the
> > Schweitzer induced habits that have to be unlearned.
>
> > When this discussion occurs the cost issue always comes up. But
> > really, what similar sport do you know that trains with antique
> > equipment. Golf, skiing, boating, and even regular attendance at
> > sports events are not inexpensive… and neither is soaring. If people/
> > clubs really want to fly in decent equipment they become creative and
> > find a way. *My guess is that the perceived low cost of operating
> > Schewizer equipment probably results in more people leaving the sport
> > than the assumed high cost of operating good equipment.
>
> > Bob
>
> > On Sep 15, 11:13*am, Kevin Christner >
> > wrote:
>
> > > I have spent enough time instructing to see two types of students,
> > > Schweizer trained and everyone else. *Place these two types in an
> > > ASK-21. *Schweizer trained students often lack refined control
> > > coordination and almost always have little ability to control pitch
> > > and speed properly. *The other students seem to do much better. *The
> > > Schweizer simply does not require the refined control of more modern
> > > gliders to be flown in a way that seems coordinated. *Being trained in
> > > a Schweizer typically means you will need to be totally retrained to
> > > fly anything else, and the bad habits first learned will often creep
> > > back.
>
> > > Find me one world team member that thinks primary training in a
> > > Schweizer is a good idea. *I doubt you'll have any glowing advocates.
>
> > > KJC
>
> > > On Sep 15, 7:34*am, Tony > wrote:
>
> > > > > The 2-33 is suffering the same metal fatigue problems in it's wings as
> > > > > the L-13.
>
> > > > Is this statement based on actual issues with 2-33 wings or just the
> > > > fact that "it is metal, it will fatigue eventually"?
>
> > > > I see no mention in any of the Schweizer Service Bulletins about
> > > > issues with 2-22 or 2-33 wing structure and have never heard of any
> > > > problems either.
>
> > > > I notice that 3 or 4 of the USA World Team members trained in
> > > > Schweizers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> I watched a pilot total a G103. *He bounced on the first contact with
> the runway but not so the situation was unrecoverable. *I was close
> enough I could see his face as he mentally shifted to landing the 2-33
> he was trained in. He wanted down and stopped RIGHT NOW so he tried to
> push a non-existent skid into the runway to stop the Grob. *The Grob
> responded with its characteristic nose-to-tail PIO bounce and broke
> up.
>
> I'd bet if you carefully analyzed every Grob 103 tail boom breaking
> accident, in the majority of the cases, you'd find a recently trained
> 2-33 pilot was at the controls. *When I look at a logbook and see
> initial training in a 2-33, I know it's going to take some through
> remedial training for a Grob transition.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Where did this guy ever get this dumb idea"???? His problem was not
"training in a 2-33", it was poor, improper training, or bad habit
after training!!!!

This "jam the skid into the ground" deal with the 2-33 is an IMPROPER
LANDING TECHNIQUE......should not be taught, should not be
tolerated........

A 2-33 should be landed just like any other "nose dragger
glider" (G-103 II or ASK 21 etc)

Landing a 2-33, on touch down, the nose should be slightly high, the
tailwheel low, almost toughing the ground, and the touch down on the
main wheel..........the ground roll should be with the nose up, skid
off the ground, rolling on the main wheel, using wheel brake if
required, until the glider is so slow that the nose comes down by
itself.......stick should be way back at this point.......glider
should be nearly stopped before the skid touches the ground.

I see many pilots do what I call "landing in a pile".....they touch
down, and immediately let the stick go forward........jamming the nose
wheel (or skid) onto the ground..........some even push the stick
forward!!! WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!............

With a nose dragger glider, the nose wheel is NOT a "landing gear", it
is merely for ground handling and slow taxi....SAME for the skid on a
nose dragger glider.........it is not a "landing" skid, it is just to
support the glider when stationary or during the very beginning of the
take off roll, and the very end of the landing roll. Same for the
nose wheel on a tri gear airplane...........

Bad habits come easily.......in our repair shop, we have had a rash of
airplane repairs where the tricycle gear airplane was landed nose
wheel first.......(or bounced into a nose first landing) resulting in
flatened front wheel, bent landing gear, bent firewall, and sometimes
prop strike and engine rebuild.........I see "wheel barrow " landings
at our field all the time......BAD TECHNIQUE!!!!!

Airplanes, gliders, nose dragger, tri gear, tail dragger, all should
be landed nose up, tail down. Landing loads taken by the main gear,
and pitch control maintained throughout the ground roll.......

So don't blame the 2-33......

Cookie

[kirk.stant]

On Sep 18, 3:04*am, "
> wrote:

> A 2-33 should be landed just like any other "nose dragger
> glider" (G-103 II or ASK 21 etc)

Really? The correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (and Blanik) is a
recipe for high energy landings in K-21s or G-103s (or worse case, a
high sink rate bounced landing leading to the infamous "galloping
Grob"!). I hope you have a long runway and a big budget for brake
pads!

Some older gliders (and not all nose draggers) require a flown on
landing - tail low, but on the main wheel - due to the tail wheel not
being stressed for landing forces. Examples are the 2-33 and Blanik
(note, one is a nose dragger, one a tail dragger). This is similar in
concept to a wheel landing in a taildragger airplane - or a somewhat
flat normal landing in a tricycle-geared airplane. The trick is that
once you have established the pitch attitude for touchdown, you can't
continue to increase the angle of attack to slow down or you will
touch the weak tail wheel/skid too early, so some judgement and skill
is required.

The later generation of trainers, whether nose draggers (k-21, g-103)
or tail draggers (DG-500/1000, Duo) are designed to land main and tail
at the same time - minimum energy landings - the equivalent of a 3-
point landing in a taildragger airplane. This is also the way almost
all current single seat gliders are designed to be landed, for obvious
reasons - gliders are now heavier and land faster, and need to be
landed at the slowest possible speed in an off-field landing.

That is one of the reasons the 2-33 is a poor trainer for today's
glider pilots (assuming they intend to move on to something more
interesting than a 1-26). If all training is done in a 2-33 (or
Blanik, to be fair), then a careful checkout in a modern glider is
essential to properly prepare the transitioning pilot for the landing
characteristics of most modern gliders.

Just to keep this discussion interesting, we can now argue whether a
low energy tailwheel-first landing is OK or bad for a modern glider
(assuming a reasonable sink rate at touchdown)...

Kirk

[ray conlon]

On Sep 18, 11:50*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 3:04*am, "
>
> > wrote:
> > A 2-33 should be landed just like any other "nose dragger
> > glider" (G-103 II or ASK 21 etc)
>
> Really? *The correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (and Blanik) is a
> recipe for high energy landings in K-21s or G-103s (or worse case, a
> high sink rate bounced landing leading to the infamous "galloping
> Grob"!). *I hope you have a long runway and a big budget for brake
> pads!
>
> Some older gliders (and not all nose draggers) require a flown on
> landing - tail low, but on the main wheel - due to the tail wheel not
> being stressed for landing forces. *Examples are the 2-33 and Blanik
> (note, one is a nose dragger, one a tail dragger). *This is similar in
> concept to a wheel landing in a taildragger airplane - or a somewhat
> flat normal landing in a tricycle-geared airplane. *The trick is that
> once you have established the pitch attitude for touchdown, you can't
> continue to increase the angle of attack to slow down or you will
> touch the weak tail wheel/skid too early, so some judgement and skill
> is required.
>
> The later generation of trainers, whether nose draggers (k-21, g-103)
> or tail draggers (DG-500/1000, Duo) are designed to land main and tail
> at the same time - minimum energy landings - the equivalent of a 3-
> point landing in a taildragger airplane. *This is also the way almost
> all current single seat gliders are designed to be landed, for obvious
> reasons - gliders are now heavier and land faster, and need to be
> landed at the slowest possible speed in an off-field landing.
>
> That is one of the reasons the 2-33 is a poor trainer for today's
> glider pilots (assuming they intend to move on to something more
> interesting than a 1-26). *If all training is done in a 2-33 (or
> Blanik, to be fair), then a careful checkout in a modern glider is
> essential to properly prepare the transitioning pilot for the landing
> characteristics of most modern gliders.
>
> Just to keep this discussion interesting, we can now argue whether a
> low energy tailwheel-first landing is OK or bad for a modern glider
> (assuming a reasonable sink rate at touchdown)...
>
> Kirk

Having flown a number of different gliders and power planes over the
years, no two of them handle or land the same, different aircraft take
different methods of landing, what works for a Cessna 150 may not do
so well in a Bonanza, or what works in a 2-33 wont wor'k well in a
Blanik,Lark,ASK21, etc. Thats why we have instructors to work us
throught the transistion. Orvile and Willber were the only guys who
had a valid reson to teach themselves to fly..

[[email protected]]

On Sep 18, 11:50*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 3:04*am, "
>
> > wrote:
> > A 2-33 should be landed just like any other "nose dragger
> > glider" (G-103 II or ASK 21 etc)
>
> Really? *The correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (and Blanik) is a
> recipe for high energy landings in K-21s or G-103s (or worse case, a
> high sink rate bounced landing leading to the infamous "galloping
> Grob"!). *I hope you have a long runway and a big budget for brake
> pads!

>
> Kirk

Please explain further........how is the correct landing procedure for
a 2-33 going to result in a high energy landing in a Grob?

IMHO....the correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (low energy, slow
speed, nose high, tail low, etc) will result in a similar low energy
landing in a Grob..........this would be a short runway landing, with
little or no need for brakes......

Cookie

[[email protected]]

On Sep 18, 11:50*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 3:04*am, "
>
> > wrote:
> > A 2-33 should be landed just like any other "nose dragger
> > glider" (G-103 II or ASK 21 etc)
>
> Really? *The correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (and Blanik) is a
> recipe for high energy landings in K-21s or G-103s (or worse case, a
> high sink rate bounced landing leading to the infamous "galloping
> Grob"!). *I hope you have a long runway and a big budget for brake
> pads!
>
> Some older gliders (and not all nose draggers) require a flown on
> landing - tail low, but on the main wheel - due to the tail wheel not
> being stressed for landing forces. *Examples are the 2-33 and Blanik
> (note, one is a nose dragger, one a tail dragger). *This is similar in
> concept to a wheel landing in a taildragger airplane - or a somewhat
> flat normal landing in a tricycle-geared airplane. *The trick is that
> once you have established the pitch attitude for touchdown, you can't
> continue to increase the angle of attack to slow down or you will
> touch the weak tail wheel/skid too early, so some judgement and skill
> is required.
>
> The later generation of trainers, whether nose draggers (k-21, g-103)

Suggested reading: Derek Piggot "Beginning Gliding" Chapter 4


Cookie
> or tail draggers (DG-500/1000, Duo) are designed to land main and tail
> at the same time - minimum energy landings - the equivalent of a 3-
> point landing in a taildragger airplane. *This is also the way almost
> all current single seat gliders are designed to be landed, for obvious
> reasons - gliders are now heavier and land faster, and need to be
> landed at the slowest possible speed in an off-field landing.
>
> That is one of the reasons the 2-33 is a poor trainer for today's
> glider pilots (assuming they intend to move on to something more
> interesting than a 1-26). *If all training is done in a 2-33 (or
> Blanik, to be fair), then a careful checkout in a modern glider is
> essential to properly prepare the transitioning pilot for the landing
> characteristics of most modern gliders.
>
> Just to keep this discussion interesting, we can now argue whether a
> low energy tailwheel-first landing is OK or bad for a modern glider
> (assuming a reasonable sink rate at touchdown)...
>
> Kirk

[[email protected]]

On Sep 18, 8:53*pm, ray conlon > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 11:50*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 18, 3:04*am, "
>
> > > wrote:
> > > A 2-33 should be landed just like any other "nose dragger
> > > glider" (G-103 II or ASK 21 etc)
>
> > Really? *The correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (and Blanik) is a
> > recipe for high energy landings in K-21s or G-103s (or worse case, a
> > high sink rate bounced landing leading to the infamous "galloping
> > Grob"!). *I hope you have a long runway and a big budget for brake
> > pads!
>
> > Some older gliders (and not all nose draggers) require a flown on
> > landing - tail low, but on the main wheel - due to the tail wheel not
> > being stressed for landing forces. *Examples are the 2-33 and Blanik
> > (note, one is a nose dragger, one a tail dragger). *This is similar in
> > concept to a wheel landing in a taildragger airplane - or a somewhat
> > flat normal landing in a tricycle-geared airplane. *The trick is that
> > once you have established the pitch attitude for touchdown, you can't
> > continue to increase the angle of attack to slow down or you will
> > touch the weak tail wheel/skid too early, so some judgement and skill
> > is required.
>
> > The later generation of trainers, whether nose draggers (k-21, g-103)
> > or tail draggers (DG-500/1000, Duo) are designed to land main and tail
> > at the same time - minimum energy landings - the equivalent of a 3-
> > point landing in a taildragger airplane. *This is also the way almost
> > all current single seat gliders are designed to be landed, for obvious
> > reasons - gliders are now heavier and land faster, and need to be
> > landed at the slowest possible speed in an off-field landing.
>
> > That is one of the reasons the 2-33 is a poor trainer for today's
> > glider pilots (assuming they intend to move on to something more
> > interesting than a 1-26). *If all training is done in a 2-33 (or
> > Blanik, to be fair), then a careful checkout in a modern glider is
> > essential to properly prepare the transitioning pilot for the landing
> > characteristics of most modern gliders.
>
> > Just to keep this discussion interesting, we can now argue whether a
> > low energy tailwheel-first landing is OK or bad for a modern glider
> > (assuming a reasonable sink rate at touchdown)...
>
> > Kirk
>
> Having flown a number of different gliders and power planes over the
> years, no two of them handle or land the same, different aircraft take
> different methods of landing, what works for a Cessna 150 may not do
> so well in a Bonanza, or what works in a 2-33 wont wor'k *well in a
> Blanik,Lark,ASK21, etc. Thats why we have instructors to work us
> throught the transistion. Orvile and Willber were the only guys who
> had a valid reson to teach themselves to fly..- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

True, but the BASIC concept is the same...........

Tell me of any nose dragger where the method is to jam the stick
forward right at touch down as the guy did in the 2-33 / Grob story
above.........


Cookie

[[email protected]]

..
>
> Just to keep this discussion interesting, we can now argue whether a
> low energy tailwheel-first landing is OK or bad for a modern glider
> (assuming a reasonable sink rate at touchdown)...
>
> Kirk

Ok....I'll start.........on a tail dragger glider.... landing "ever
so slightly" tail first touch down is a good thing..........if the
approach is stable, and the sink rate is reasonable at touch
down..........by touching the tail first, the main gear will come to
the ground next, lowering the angle of attack on the wing, making it
not likely for the glider to "bounce".

Landing slightly tail first will also indicate that the glider is in
the "low energy" state.....i.e. as slow as practical..(not as slow as
possible, just as slow as practical)

Landing slightly tail first should not put any undue stress on the
airframe, tailwheel/skid etc, because the "weight" at the tail is very
light..........the CG is far forward of the tail...........the glider
will soon settle (softly) on the main gear, where the majority of the
weight is taken by the robust structure / shock absorber etc
there.....

Note............this technique does not mean ....get close to the
ground and jerk the stick back......this would cause the tail to slam
into the ground with consideral impact......not good.

Landing tail high in a taildragger glider is not a good
thing........It indicates excess speed.......since the CG is behind
the main gear, there is a tendancy of the tail to drop after main
touch down, increasing the angle of attack, and possibly resulting in
a "bounce".

Yes, a "wheel type" landing can be done successfully in a taildragger
glider, but in requires a slight stick forward pressure after touch
down to prevent bouncing, (by lowering the angle of attack.....) and
excessive speed, onger ground roll etc.

Landing tail first in a nose dragger glider is not a good
thing.................

Landing tail first in a nose dragger will result in the main gear next
touching down, but since the CG is in FRONT of this wheel, the
tendancy is for the glider to continue to pitch forward (nose down)
and contact the skid /nosewheel immediately..........as I mentioned
earlier, the nose wheel or skid is not a "landing gear"......


IMHO......a nose dragger glider should be landed with "low
energy" (slow airspeed), but not so slow that the tail touches first
(too slow)......The nose skid/ wheel should be held off the ground
during the ground taxi, as long as elevator authority allows......when
the nose finally drops, the ground speed is very slow........

Same technique works for 2-33, 1-26, ASK-21, Grob 103......


This is far different from a "wheel type landing" and far different
form "flying the glider on"




Cookie

[bildan]

On Sep 18, 7:52*pm, "
> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 11:50*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 18, 3:04*am, "
>
> > > wrote:
> > > A 2-33 should be landed just like any other "nose dragger
> > > glider" (G-103 II or ASK 21 etc)
>
> > Really? *The correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (and Blanik) is a
> > recipe for high energy landings in K-21s or G-103s (or worse case, a
> > high sink rate bounced landing leading to the infamous "galloping
> > Grob"!). *I hope you have a long runway and a big budget for brake
> > pads!
>
> > Kirk
>
> Please explain further........how is the correct landing procedure for
> a 2-33 going to result in a high energy landing in a Grob?
>
> IMHO....the correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (low energy, slow
> speed, nose high, tail low, etc) will result in a similar low energy
> landing in a Grob..........this would be a short runway landing, with
> little or no need for brakes......
>
> Cookie

That is exactly correct.

However, regardless of instructor efforts to prevent it, students will
learn on their own a 2-33 stops really well with the skid on the
runway and the more weight on the skid, the faster it stops. Trying
to teach a student not to use this very useful trick is fruitless.

This primary learning will transfer to a Grob and other gliders where
it puts the new pilot at risk of a damaging accident. When a new
pilot really, really needs to stop, it's going to be hard for him not
to push the nose down.

[bildan]

On Sep 18, 8:23*pm, "
> wrote:
> .
>
>
>
> > Just to keep this discussion interesting, we can now argue whether a
> > low energy tailwheel-first landing is OK or bad for a modern glider
> > (assuming a reasonable sink rate at touchdown)...
>
> > Kirk
>
> Ok....I'll start.........on a tail dragger glider.... landing *"ever
> so slightly" tail first touch down is a good thing..........if the
> approach is stable, and the sink rate is reasonable at touch
> down..........by touching the tail first, the main gear will come to
> the ground next, lowering the angle of attack on the wing, making it
> not likely for the glider to "bounce".
>
> Landing slightly tail first will also indicate that the glider is in
> the "low energy" state.....i.e. as slow as practical..(not as slow as
> possible, just as slow as practical)
>
> Landing slightly tail first should not put any undue stress on the
> airframe, tailwheel/skid etc, because the "weight" at the tail is very
> light..........the CG is far forward of the tail...........the glider
> will soon settle (softly) on the main gear, where the majority of the
> weight is taken by the robust structure / shock absorber etc
> there.....
>
> Note............this technique does not mean ....get close to the
> ground and jerk the stick back......this would cause the tail to slam
> into the ground with consideral impact......not good.
>
> Landing tail high in a taildragger glider is not a good
> thing........It indicates excess speed.......since the CG is behind
> the main gear, there is a tendancy of the tail to drop after main
> touch down, increasing the angle of attack, and possibly resulting in
> a *"bounce".
>
> Yes, a "wheel type" landing can be done successfully in a taildragger
> glider, but in requires a slight stick forward pressure after touch
> down to prevent bouncing, (by lowering the angle of attack.....) * and
> excessive speed, onger ground roll etc.
>
> Landing tail first in a nose dragger glider is not a good
> thing.................
>
> Landing tail first in a nose dragger will result in the main gear next
> touching down, but since the CG is in FRONT of this wheel, the
> tendancy is for the glider to continue to pitch forward (nose down)
> and contact the skid /nosewheel immediately..........as I mentioned
> earlier, the nose wheel or skid is not a "landing gear"......
>
> IMHO......a nose dragger glider should be landed with "low
> energy" *(slow airspeed), but not so slow that the tail touches first
> (too slow)......The nose skid/ wheel should be held off the ground
> during the ground taxi, as long as elevator authority allows......when
> the nose finally drops, the ground speed is very slow........
>
> Same technique works for 2-33, 1-26, *ASK-21, Grob 103......
>
> This is far different from a "wheel type landing" and far different
> form "flying the glider on"
>
> Cookie

Well said.

I would differ a tiny bit in that a very slight tail low touchdown in
a nose wheel glider isn't going to be a problem - but nothing more
than a couple of inches low.

[kirk.stant]

On Sep 18, 5:53*pm, ray conlon > wrote:
>
> Having flown a number of different gliders and power planes over the
> years, no two of them handle or land the same, different aircraft take
> different methods of landing, what works for a Cessna 150 may not do
> so well in a Bonanza, or what works in a 2-33 wont wor'k *well in a
> Blanik,Lark,ASK21, etc. Thats why we have instructors to work us
> throught the transistion. Orvile and Willber were the only guys who
> had a valid reson to teach themselves to fly..

Having flown a number of gliders and power planes over the years, they
are all pretty much landed the same - at the slowest possible speed
allowed by the configuration of the landing gear (and the conditions
at hand - for example a strong gusty crosswind may require a different
technique than a calm day on a short field). It's that gear
configuration that requires different techniques for different
airplanes, not aerodynamics.

That gear configuration is a driving factor in how 2-33s and Blaniks
are landed vs how most modern gliders are landed (I say most because
the PW-5 & 6 may be different, but I have no first hand experience in
those two).

If a student isn't taught the REASON for the specific landing
technique (fixed attitude, slightly tail low, "flown-on" in 2-33s and
Blaniks, due to weak tail vs tail and main at same time, min energy in
glass such as K-21 or G-103) they will probably think that the first
technique they are taught will apply to all future gliders. That can
get very expensive.

Kirk

[kirk.stant]

> Tell me of any nose dragger where the method is to jam the stick
> forward right at touch down as the guy did in the 2-33 / Grob story
> above.........
>
> Cookie

Under certain circumstances (off field landing in very short field)
that is exactly the method that should be used - IF you are in a
glider with a big skid and useless brakes. That's why it is there.
But again - it's a specific technique for a specific condition, not to
be applied universally - and especially not in the G-103! The skid is
not the same as the nose wheel currently used, it serves a different
purpose.

Kirk

[kirk.stant]

On Sep 18, 6:52*pm, "
> wrote:
>
> Please explain further........how is the correct landing procedure for
> a 2-33 going to result in a high energy landing in a Grob?
>
> IMHO....the correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (low energy, slow
> speed, nose high, tail low, etc) will result in a similar low energy
> landing in a Grob..........this would be a short runway landing, with
> little or no need for brakes......
>
> Cookie

So, when you are teaching landings to a student in a 2-33, do you
first sit him in the front seat, level the wings, then hold the nose
up until the tailwheel is on the ground and say "this is your landing
attitude"? Do you do that in a G-103? Didn't think so. Where that
tailwheel is relative to the ground is the difference. The landing
angle of attack is probably about the same, but a student who learns
to land on the main in a 2-33, nice and slow, but never touching the
tailwheel, then who transfers that technique to the G-103, is a prime
candidate for high energy landing problems. It's not a killer problem
- but it needs to be taught correctly!

Kirk

[kirk.stant]

On Sep 18, 7:23*pm, "
> wrote:

> IMHO......a nose dragger glider should be landed with "low
> energy" *(slow airspeed), but not so slow that the tail touches first
> (too slow)......The nose skid/ wheel should be held off the ground
> during the ground taxi, as long as elevator authority allows......when
> the nose finally drops, the ground speed is very slow........
>
> Same technique works for 2-33, 1-26, *ASK-21, Grob 103......
>
> This is far different from a "wheel type landing" and far different
> form "flying the glider on"
>
> Cookie

Agree on most, but disagree on K-21s and G-103s - their nose wheel is
not the same as a nose skid, and they should be landed tail and main
simultaneously, just like a taildragger. Reason? Look at the
achievable angle of attack in the taildown attitude, between a 2-33
and a G-103. Tail low in a 2-33 is a significant angle of attack,
nice and slow, but with the tailwheel still well off the ground. Tail
low in a G-103, with the tailwheel not touching the gound, is going to
be really fast!

Kirk

[kirk.stant]

On Sep 19, 7:30*am, bildan > wrote:
> On Well said.
>
> I would differ a tiny bit in that a very slight tail low touchdown in
> a nose wheel glider isn't going to be a problem - but nothing more
> than a couple of inches low.


What? Do you guys actually fly K-21s and G-103s? Is that what you
teach your students? No wonder the Euros think we are a bunch of
buffoons!

Disgustedly,

66

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 16:07 19 September 2010, kirk.stant wrote:
>On Sep 18, 6:52=A0pm, "
> wrote:
>>
>> Please explain further........how is the correct landing procedure for
>> a 2-33 going to result in a high energy landing in a Grob?
>>
>> IMHO....the correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (low energy, slow
>> speed, nose high, tail low, etc) will result in a similar low energy
>> landing in a Grob..........this would be a short runway landing, with
>> little or no need for brakes......
>>
>> Cookie
>
>So, when you are teaching landings to a student in a 2-33, do you
>first sit him in the front seat, level the wings, then hold the nose
>up until the tailwheel is on the ground and say "this is your landing
>attitude"? Do you do that in a G-103? Didn't think so. Where that
>tailwheel is relative to the ground is the difference. The landing
>angle of attack is probably about the same, but a student who learns
>to land on the main in a 2-33, nice and slow, but never touching the
>tailwheel, then who transfers that technique to the G-103, is a prime
>candidate for high energy landing problems. It's not a killer problem
>- but it needs to be taught correctly!
>
>Kirk

I did exactly that when teaching students to land a G103 except I would
push down on the tail so that they could see the picture in front of them.
The correct attitude is that where the main wheel and tailwheel touch the
ground at the same time. The glider should then be kept running on the
main and tailwheel for as long as possible, directional control is lost
when the glider goes nosewheel down.

[bildan]

On Sep 19, 10:16*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Sep 19, 7:30*am, bildan > wrote:
>
> > On Well said.
>
> > I would differ a tiny bit in that a very slight tail low touchdown in
> > a nose wheel glider isn't going to be a problem - but nothing more
> > than a couple of inches low.
>
> What? *Do you guys actually fly K-21s and G-103s? *Is that what you
> teach your students? *No wonder the Euros think we are a bunch of
> buffoons!
>
> Disgustedly,
>
> 66

You obviously misunderstood something I wrote. Yes, I have lots of
time in those gliders and they do get landed slightly tail low - with
the tail wheel an inch or two lower than the main wheel. It causes no
problems and the landing is a little lower energy than a "two point"
touchdown. In an off field landing, I'd probably have the tail a lot
lower than that.

[kirk.stant]

On Sep 19, 10:05*am, bildan > wrote:
> On Sep 19, 10:16*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 19, 7:30*am, bildan > wrote:
>
> > > On Well said.
>
> > > I would differ a tiny bit in that a very slight tail low touchdown in
> > > a nose wheel glider isn't going to be a problem - but nothing more
> > > than a couple of inches low.
>
> > What? *Do you guys actually fly K-21s and G-103s? *Is that what you
> > teach your students? *No wonder the Euros think we are a bunch of
> > buffoons!
>
> > Disgustedly,
>
> > 66
>
> You obviously misunderstood something I wrote. *Yes, I have lots of
> time in those gliders and they do get landed slightly tail low - with
> the tail wheel an inch or two lower than the main wheel. *It causes no
> problems and the landing is a little lower energy than a "two point"
> touchdown. *In an off field landing, I'd probably have the tail a lot
> lower than that.

I apologize for getting a bit testy, it was uncalled for.

I think we are all arguing around the same basic concept; sometimes
explaining those concepts can be challenging.

Cheers,

Kirk

[kirk.stant]

On Sep 19, 9:30*am, Don Johnstone > wrote
:>
> I did exactly that when teaching students to land a G103 except I would
> push down on the tail so that they could see the picture in front of them..
> The correct attitude is that where the main wheel and tailwheel touch the
> ground at the same time. The glider should then be kept running on the
> main and tailwheel for as long as possible, directional control is lost
> when the glider goes nosewheel down.

What is interesting is when you compare 4 different gliders: With a
2-33 (nosedragger), you have to pull the nose up until the tail
touches, then lower it until it's at the correct landing attitude (you
establish the range of available touchdown angle of attack). With a
Blanik (taildragger), you have to raise the tail a little bit to show
the desired touchdown angle. With a K-21 (nosedragger), you pull the
nose up until the tail is on the ground, and finally, with a DG-1000
(taildragger), you just level the wings.

Again, it's the gear configuration that is important, and why it's
important is something the student needs to understand.

Cheers

Kirk

[Berry[_2_]]

In article
>,
" > wrote:


> I see many pilots do what I call "landing in a pile".....they touch
> down, and immediately let the stick go forward........jamming the nose
> wheel (or skid) onto the ground..........some even push the stick
> forward!!! WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!............
>
> With a nose dragger glider, the nose wheel is NOT a "landing gear", it
> is merely for ground handling and slow taxi....SAME for the skid on a
> nose dragger glider.........it is not a "landing" skid, it is just to
> support the glider when stationary or during the very beginning of the
> take off roll, and the very end of the landing roll. Same for the
> nose wheel on a tri gear airplane...........
>
> Bad habits come easily.......in our repair shop, we have had a rash of
> airplane repairs where the tricycle gear airplane was landed nose
> wheel first.......(or bounced into a nose first landing) resulting in
> flatened front wheel, bent landing gear, bent firewall, and sometimes
> prop strike and engine rebuild.........I see "wheel barrow " landings
> at our field all the time......BAD TECHNIQUE!!!!!
>
> Airplanes, gliders, nose dragger, tri gear, tail dragger, all should
> be landed nose up, tail down. Landing loads taken by the main gear,
> and pitch control maintained throughout the ground roll.......
>
> So don't blame the 2-33......
>
> Cookie

On one of my wife's 2-33 instruction flights: The instructor wanted to
land and stop quickly so he would not have to push the glider too far
back to the takeoff point. He jammed the skid onto the paved runway at
touchdown. The friction heated the metal skid to incandescence and
caught the wooden skid underneath on fire!

[Bruce Hoult]

On Sep 20, 2:26*am, bildan > wrote:
> This primary learning will transfer to a Grob and other gliders where
> it puts the new pilot at risk of a damaging accident. *When a new
> pilot really, really needs to stop, it's going to be hard for him not
> to push the nose down.

When you really really need to stop, pushing the nose down hard works
well on anything that doesn't have a nose wheel. We were taught to do
it in an emergency in the Blanik L13 and I've seen it done in a Grob.

By "really really need to stop" I mean that you're going to die or be
seriously injured if you don't stop and you don't care about damaging
the nose skin and structure or slamming the tail back down afterwards.

Incidentally, someone landed their Cirrus on a suburban street here on
Sunday morning. They reportedly deliberately used the poles on either
side of a pedestrian crossing to slow down. I believe my instructors
mentioned tree trunks in this context, but whatever...

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/glider-pilot-lucky-alive-3785681
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4144370/Glider-lands-on-a-wing-and-a-prayer
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10674749

[Dave Doe]

In article <751a02b3-2be7-490a-a3e2-ca1f9b850701
@u31g2000pru.googlegroups.com>, says...
>
> On Sep 20, 2:26*am, bildan > wrote:
> > This primary learning will transfer to a Grob and other gliders where
> > it puts the new pilot at risk of a damaging accident. *When a new
> > pilot really, really needs to stop, it's going to be hard for him not
> > to push the nose down.
>
> When you really really need to stop, pushing the nose down hard works
> well on anything that doesn't have a nose wheel. We were taught to do
> it in an emergency in the Blanik L13 and I've seen it done in a Grob.
>
> By "really really need to stop" I mean that you're going to die or be
> seriously injured if you don't stop and you don't care about damaging
> the nose skin and structure or slamming the tail back down afterwards.
>
> Incidentally, someone landed their Cirrus on a suburban street here on
> Sunday morning. They reportedly deliberately used the poles on either
> side of a pedestrian crossing to slow down. I believe my instructors
> mentioned tree trunks in this context, but whatever...
>
> http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/glider-pilot-lucky-alive-3785681
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4144370/Glider-lands-on-a-wing-and-a-prayer
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10674749

stuff.co.nz! - they just *have* to bring religion into it! Grrr :)

--
Duncan.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:57:15 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

>
> Incidentally, someone landed their Cirrus on a suburban street here on
> Sunday morning. They reportedly deliberately used the poles on either
> side of a pedestrian crossing to slow down. I believe my instructors
> mentioned tree trunks in this context, but whatever...
>
My cousin, who lives in Waikanae, said it was a turbulent, gusty day but
none of the reports mention the weather. How would you rate it?


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

[[email protected]]

On Sep 19, 10:30*am, bildan > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 8:23*pm, "
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > .
>
> > > Just to keep this discussion interesting, we can now argue whether a
> > > low energy tailwheel-first landing is OK or bad for a modern glider
> > > (assuming a reasonable sink rate at touchdown)...
>
> > > Kirk
>
> > Ok....I'll start.........on a tail dragger glider.... landing *"ever
> > so slightly" tail first touch down is a good thing..........if the
> > approach is stable, and the sink rate is reasonable at touch
> > down..........by touching the tail first, the main gear will come to
> > the ground next, lowering the angle of attack on the wing, making it
> > not likely for the glider to "bounce".
>
> > Landing slightly tail first will also indicate that the glider is in
> > the "low energy" state.....i.e. as slow as practical..(not as slow as
> > possible, just as slow as practical)
>
> > Landing slightly tail first should not put any undue stress on the
> > airframe, tailwheel/skid etc, because the "weight" at the tail is very
> > light..........the CG is far forward of the tail...........the glider
> > will soon settle (softly) on the main gear, where the majority of the
> > weight is taken by the robust structure / shock absorber etc
> > there.....
>
> > Note............this technique does not mean ....get close to the
> > ground and jerk the stick back......this would cause the tail to slam
> > into the ground with consideral impact......not good.
>
> > Landing tail high in a taildragger glider is not a good
> > thing........It indicates excess speed.......since the CG is behind
> > the main gear, there is a tendancy of the tail to drop after main
> > touch down, increasing the angle of attack, and possibly resulting in
> > a *"bounce".
>
> > Yes, a "wheel type" landing can be done successfully in a taildragger
> > glider, but in requires a slight stick forward pressure after touch
> > down to prevent bouncing, (by lowering the angle of attack.....) * and
> > excessive speed, onger ground roll etc.
>
> > Landing tail first in a nose dragger glider is not a good
> > thing.................
>
> > Landing tail first in a nose dragger will result in the main gear next
> > touching down, but since the CG is in FRONT of this wheel, the
> > tendancy is for the glider to continue to pitch forward (nose down)
> > and contact the skid /nosewheel immediately..........as I mentioned
> > earlier, the nose wheel or skid is not a "landing gear"......
>
> > IMHO......a nose dragger glider should be landed with "low
> > energy" *(slow airspeed), but not so slow that the tail touches first
> > (too slow)......The nose skid/ wheel should be held off the ground
> > during the ground taxi, as long as elevator authority allows......when
> > the nose finally drops, the ground speed is very slow........
>
> > Same technique works for 2-33, 1-26, *ASK-21, Grob 103......
>
> > This is far different from a "wheel type landing" and far different
> > form "flying the glider on"
>
> > Cookie
>
> Well said.
>
> I would differ a tiny bit in that a very slight tail low touchdown in
> a nose wheel glider isn't going to be a problem - but nothing more
> than a couple of inches low.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

yes....agreed......After I gave some thought to my post, I realized I
should have included that ..........

But not in a 2-33 as a tail first laniding in a 2-33 is in my opinion
under the category of too slow.........this is due to the shape of the
33's belly and tail.......(bulbous belly and high tail).


Cookie

[[email protected]]

On Sep 19, 11:52*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 5:53*pm, ray conlon > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Having flown a number of different gliders and power planes over the
> > years, no two of them handle or land the same, different aircraft take
> > different methods of landing, what works for a Cessna 150 may not do
> > so well in a Bonanza, or what works in a 2-33 wont wor'k *well in a
> > Blanik,Lark,ASK21, etc. Thats why we have instructors to work us
> > throught the transistion. Orvile and Willber were the only guys who
> > had a valid reson to teach themselves to fly..
>
> Having flown a number of gliders and power planes over the years, they
> are all pretty much landed the same - at the slowest possible speed
> allowed by the configuration of the landing gear (and the conditions
> at hand - for example a strong gusty crosswind may require a different
> technique than a calm day on a short field). *It's that gear
> configuration that requires different techniques for different
> airplanes, not aerodynamics.
>
> That gear configuration is a driving factor in how 2-33s and Blaniks
> are landed vs how most modern gliders are landed (I say most because
> the PW-5 & 6 may be different, but I have no first hand experience in
> those two).
>
> If a student isn't taught the REASON for the specific landing
> technique (fixed attitude, slightly tail low, "flown-on" in 2-33s and
> Blaniks, due to weak tail vs tail and main at same time, min energy in
> glass such as K-21 or G-103) they will probably think that the first
> technique they are taught will apply to all future gliders. *That can
> get very expensive.
>
> Kirk

2-33 should NOT be "flown on" as you suggest above............

Yes, bottom line is "low energy landing" in ANY aircraft..........Low
energy means "slow"....but not "slow a possible" it means slow as
practical..........this leads to the nuances.

But any glider landed in a low energy configuration will not tear
itself into pieces as the 2-33 trained grob pilot did in the scenerio
referred to in the earlier post.

Thousands of pilots have been properly trained in 2-33 and progress
seccessfully to all kinds of "more advanced" gliders without
issue..........

True that a poorly trained 2-33 pilot, or one who has degenerated into
bad habbits, may take those problems with him into the more advanced
gliders.........but this is a training / pilot problem, not an
aircraft problem. I see plenty of pilots, airplane and glider, who
have developed some bad landing habits and have never set foti n a
2-33.

The 2-33 will withstand less than perfect landings by beginners
because it is designed to do so as a TRAINER. We are all allowed to
make mistakes.........The idea is for the student / instructor to work
out all these problems early in the program. Once consistant good
landings are made in the 2-33 the pilot can then easily adapt to any
glider. If poor landing technique is tolerated in the 2-33 then the
less forgiving gliders will show this defeciency.

But this is all the more arguement for the 2-33 as a trainer, and not
using Grob or ASK as a trainer.......

Cookie

[[email protected]]

On Sep 19, 11:56*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> > Tell me of any nose dragger where the method is to jam the stick
> > forward right at touch down as the guy did in the 2-33 / Grob story
> > above.........
>
> > Cookie
>
> Under certain circumstances (off field landing in very short field)
> that is exactly the method that should be used - IF you are in a
> glider with a big skid and useless brakes. *That's why it is there.
> But again - it's a specific technique for a specific condition, not to
> be applied universally - and especially not in the G-103! *The skid is
> not the same as the nose wheel currently used, it serves a different
> purpose.
>
> Kirk

So you are saying that the proper landing technique for a 2-33 is to
jam the stick forward? Or only this technique in off field
landings?

BTW 2-33 normally has pretty good brakes....the drum brake model has
good brakes, the disc brake model has great brakes..........(unless
there is a maintenance problem, which is not the glider's fault).

In off field landing, it is better to deal with rough terrain, or
hitting of unseen objects (rocks, etc) with the main wheel/tire, NOT
THE SKID.

I would argue that stopping with brakes is just as good as stopping
with the skid...........but that arguement would not be necessary if
proper landing technique is used in off field landing..........LOW
ENERGY LANDING.........

After a low energy landing, the glider will need very little braking
if any to come to a stop in a short distance, particularily if the
surface is the typical soft dirt farm field.

Of couse a pilot who was incorrectly trained in the "fly it on"
technique will touch down with considerable extra speed and have a
problem in a short field.


Cookie

[[email protected]]

On Sep 19, 12:07*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 6:52*pm, "
>
> > wrote:
>
> > Please explain further........how is the correct landing procedure for
> > a 2-33 going to result in a high energy landing in a Grob?
>
> > IMHO....the correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (low energy, slow
> > speed, nose high, tail low, etc) will result in a similar low energy
> > landing in a Grob..........this would be a short runway landing, with
> > little or no need for brakes......
>
> > Cookie
>
> So, when you are teaching landings to a student in a 2-33, do you
> first sit him in the front seat, level the wings, then hold the nose
> up until the tailwheel is on the ground and say "this is your landing
> attitude"? *Do you do that in a G-103? *Didn't think so. *Where that
> tailwheel is relative to the ground is the difference. *The landing
> angle of attack is probably about the same, but a student who learns
> to land on the main in a 2-33, nice and slow, but never touching the
> tailwheel, then who transfers that technique to the G-103, is a prime
> candidate for high energy landing problems. *It's not a killer problem
> - but it needs to be taught correctly!
>
> Kirk

Correct landing attitude in a 2-33 is NOT tail all the way
down..........this comes under the category of "too slow"

2-33 should be landed tail low, nose high, low energy, slow a
practical, not slow as possible, and the skid kept off the ground as
long as possible during ground roll.

2-33 has a unique shape in that the main wheel is mounted low on the
bulbus belly, and the tail wheel is mounted high on the up swept
fuselage tail.

Grob should be landed nose high, tail low, as slow as practical (tail
first is OK if subtle), nose wheel held off during ground taxi as long
as possible


So tell me agian how a proper low energy 2-33 landing relates to
making a high energy Grob landing???


Cookie

[[email protected]]

On Sep 19, 12:13*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 7:23*pm, "
>
> > wrote:
> > IMHO......a nose dragger glider should be landed with "low
> > energy" *(slow airspeed), but not so slow that the tail touches first
> > (too slow)......The nose skid/ wheel should be held off the ground
> > during the ground taxi, as long as elevator authority allows......when
> > the nose finally drops, the ground speed is very slow........
>
> > Same technique works for 2-33, 1-26, *ASK-21, Grob 103......
>
> > This is far different from a "wheel type landing" and far different
> > form "flying the glider on"
>
> > Cookie
>
> Agree on most, but disagree on K-21s and G-103s - their nose wheel is
> not the same as a nose skid, and they should be landed tail and main
> simultaneously, just like a taildragger. *Reason? *Look at the
> achievable angle of attack in the taildown attitude, between a 2-33
> and a G-103. *Tail low in a 2-33 is a significant angle of attack,
> nice and slow, but with the tailwheel still well off the ground. *Tail
> low in a G-103, with the tailwheel not touching the gound, is going to
> be really fast!
>
> Kirk

Basically I agree...........2-33 tail wheel does not touch first, (in
fact not a t all) but it must be low tail, high nose, low energy.

Grob tail should also be low, but it just can't go as low as a 2-33
due to fuselage shape, so two point touch down is about as low as the
tail can get.....slight tail first touch down is also good, as it is
slower yet.........

But touching the tail first in a grob, with considerable sink rate
results in the following....

Tail touches, main touches, forward fof main CG pushes nose wheel down
and touches............

This is what I call landing in a heap.........see it all the
time............

Bottom line...........2-33 is landed low energy..........Grob is
landed low energy..........

Properly trained and practiced 2-33 pilot can land a grob
nicely.........

Poorly trained, bad habit 2-33 pilot cannot land a grob nicely (nor
the 2-33)
Cookie

[[email protected]]

On Sep 19, 12:16*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Sep 19, 7:30*am, bildan > wrote:
>
> > On Well said.
>
> > I would differ a tiny bit in that a very slight tail low touchdown in
> > a nose wheel glider isn't going to be a problem - but nothing more
> > than a couple of inches low.
>
> What? *Do you guys actually fly K-21s and G-103s? *Is that what you
> teach your students? *No wonder the Euros think we are a bunch of
> buffoons!
>
> Disgustedly,
>
> 66

Tell us how you and the "eruos" land a Grob or ASK????

Tell us how this would be different than a proper 2-33 landing????

Cookie

[[email protected]]

On Sep 19, 1:35*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Sep 19, 9:30*am, Don Johnstone > wrote
> :>
>
> > I did exactly that when teaching students to land a G103 except I would
> > push down on the tail so that they could see the picture in front of them.
> > The correct attitude is that where the main wheel and tailwheel touch the
> > ground at the same time. The glider should then be kept running on the
> > main and tailwheel for as long as possible, directional control is lost
> > when the glider goes nosewheel down.
>
> What is interesting is when you compare 4 different gliders: *With a
> 2-33 (nosedragger), you have to pull the nose up until the tail
> touches, then lower it until it's at the correct landing attitude (you
> establish the range of available touchdown angle of attack). *With a
> Blanik (taildragger), you have to raise the tail a little bit to show
> the desired touchdown angle. *With a K-21 (nosedragger), you pull the
> nose up until the tail is on the ground, and finally, with a DG-1000
> (taildragger), you just level the wings.
>
> Again, it's the gear configuration that is important, and why it's
> important is something the student needs to understand.
>
> Cheers
>
> Kirk

OK.....But the same BASIC technique works for all these
gliders............LOW ENERGY LANDING.......

Cookie

[[email protected]]

On Sep 19, 5:57*pm, Berry > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> " > wrote:
> > I see many pilots do what I call "landing in a pile".....they touch
> > down, and immediately let the stick go forward........jamming the nose
> > wheel (or skid) onto the ground..........some even push the stick
> > forward!!! *WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!............
>
> > With a nose dragger glider, the nose wheel is NOT a "landing gear", it
> > is merely for ground handling and slow taxi....SAME for the skid on a
> > nose dragger glider.........it is not a "landing" skid, it is just to
> > support the glider when stationary or during the very beginning of the
> > take off roll, and the very end of the landing roll. *Same for the
> > nose wheel on a tri gear airplane...........
>
> > Bad habits come easily.......in our repair shop, we have had a rash of
> > airplane repairs where the tricycle gear airplane was landed nose
> > wheel first.......(or bounced into a nose first landing) resulting in
> > flatened front wheel, bent landing gear, bent firewall, and sometimes
> > prop strike and engine rebuild.........I see "wheel barrow " landings
> > at our field all the time......BAD TECHNIQUE!!!!!
>
> > Airplanes, gliders, nose dragger, tri gear, tail dragger, all should
> > be landed nose up, tail down. *Landing loads taken by the main gear,
> > and pitch control maintained throughout the ground roll.......
>
> > So don't blame the 2-33......
>
> > Cookie
>
> On one of my wife's 2-33 instruction flights: The instructor wanted to
> land and stop quickly so he would not have to push the glider too far
> back to the takeoff point. He jammed the skid onto the paved runway at
> touchdown. The friction heated the metal skid to incandescence and
> caught the wooden skid underneath on fire!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL..........just because he has the certificate..........doesn't mean
much..........

Cookie

[libelle40]

On 20/09/2010 15:57, Bruce Hoult wrote:

> Incidentally, someone landed their Cirrus on a suburban street here on
> Sunday morning. They reportedly deliberately used the poles on either
> side of a pedestrian crossing to slow down. I believe my instructors
> mentioned tree trunks in this context, but whatever...
>
> http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/glider-pilot-lucky-alive-3785681
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4144370/Glider-lands-on-a-wing-and-a-prayer
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10674749

I love tvnz's careful description:
"The plane landed beside St Patrick's School on
Tongariro Street, at the bus stop, near a give way sign."

He appears to have knocked over the No Parking sign. That won't stop
him getting booked, though. It's clearly not parked legally!

GC

[Kevin Christner]

> The 2-33 will withstand less than perfect landings by beginners
> because it is designed to do so as a TRAINER. *We are *all allowed to
> make mistakes.........The idea is for the student / instructor to work
> out all these problems early in the program. Once consistant good
> landings are made in the 2-33 the pilot can then easily adapt to any
> glider. *If poor landing technique is tolerated in the 2-33 then the
> less forgiving gliders will show this defeciency.
>
> But this is all the more arguement for the 2-33 as a trainer, and not
> using Grob or ASK as a trainer.......
>
> Cookie

First, I don't see any "argument" there for using the 2-33 as a
trainer. The 2-33 flies differently than just about anything else out
there. Beyond basic stick and rudder skills, it doesn't prepare the
pilot to fly anything else. The rest of the world seems to be able to
use more modern gliders safely and efficiently without regular damage
- they also seem to produce better pilots, at least from world
championship results.

Teaching low energy landings in a 2-33 can be a bit of a trick.
Because the tail is so high relative to the main wheel there is a
tendency to go "ground seeking" with the tail leading to the glider
stalling before the anything touches down and a nice heavy thud.
Hence, very few true low energy landings are taught in a 2-33
(somewhere in the low 30's vs. right around 40). This also doesn't
prepare for proper 2-points - the angle of attack to 2-point being
much lower in a ASK-21 or similar.

Another thread states the 2-33 works fine because eventually *some* go
on to fly glass, *few* go on to fly X-C, and *fewer* fly a contest.
Again this does not address whether the 2-33 properly prepares pilots
for the types of gliders they will likely be flying - even the author
admits that they must first "transition" (translation: retrain) to the
ASK-21. This whole process could just be skipped without the
potential for developing all the sloppy habits that almost come from
pilots trained in 2-33's.

The only "argument" in this either thread is based on price point.
And I won't argue with that one.

[Kevin Christner]

>
> OK.....But the same BASIC technique works for all these
> gliders............LOW ENERGY LANDING.......
>
> Cookie

A proper low energy landing involves a two point (or arguably tail
first) touchdown. You cannot teach this in a 2-33. The euro's laugh
at us because a not insignificant amount of owners of the newest glass
ships still can't do a proper low energy landing.

If you feel the need to comment so strongly to this thread you may
wish to reveal your real identity. Otherwise we'll have to assume you
are Lennie the Lurker (and if you don't know who this is, you haven't
been in soaring, or at least on RAS, long enough to comment on these
issues)

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

>> than a couple of inches low.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>yes....agreed......After I gave some thought to my post, I realized I
>should have included that ..........
>
>But not in a 2-33 as a tail first laniding in a 2-33 is in my opinion
>under the category of too slow.........this is due to the shape of the
>33's belly and tail.......(bulbous belly and high tail).
>
>
>Cookie

You are being ironic I hope. How can a glider touchdown be "Too slow"?
We are not talking about a tail down attitude at height but rather to
arrive at the point where the main wheel and tailwheel touch the ground
together, (a couple of millimetres either way is acceptable) in effect the
stalling angle is reached just before the glider contacts the ground giving
the minimum touchdown velocity with a minimum ground run. If you do not
understand why this could be important then perhaps your intention was not
irony.

[John Smith]

Kevin Christner wrote:
> A proper low energy landing involves a two point (or arguably tail
> first) touchdown. You cannot teach this in a 2-33. The euro's laugh
> at us because a not insignificant amount of owners of the newest glass
> ships still can't do a proper low energy landing.

I followed this discussion for a while now and frankly, I don't
understand all the fuss. I have never been shown any paritcular landing
attitude, because this would be meaningless as every glider is
different. I've just been told to flare that beast, and keep it flying
as long as possible until it ceases to fly. Ths means increasing the
angle of attack as the speed decays until the glider falls out of the
air. Properly built gliders will do so in a two point attitude, some
more accurate, some less accurate. That's all I've been taught and
that's how I've been doing it for years. Frankly, I couldn't even tell
you the landing attitude.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Sep 20, 11:38*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:57:15 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
> > Incidentally, someone landed their Cirrus on a suburban street here on
> > Sunday morning. They reportedly deliberately used the poles on either
> > side of a pedestrian crossing to slow down. I believe my instructors
> > mentioned tree trunks in this context, but whatever...
>
> My cousin, who lives in Waikanae, said it was a turbulent, gusty day but
> none of the reports mention the weather. How would you rate it?

The entire country was covered by a massive storm centered to the
south of the South Island with strong westerly conditions covering the
whole 2000 km (north/south) of the country. If you could get high
somewhere it could well have been a record-setting day. Some
supermarkets and a stadium in Southland collapsed due to the weight of
snow on them. Around Auckland and Hamilton trees were coming down and
houses losing roofs and a lot of people lost electricity. In the
middle of the North Island there were a lot of slips on to roads.

It wasn't so bad around Wellington and was, fundamentally, a fine day,
but windy. I wasn't at the club but I'd expect that it was probably
gusting over 30 knots.

Those are mostly fairly benign conditions at Paraparaumu with smooth
air coming off the ocean and on to the hills 3 or 4 km inland, and the
sea cliffs further south. The only real problem is Kapiti Island, 5
km offshore, which produces wave which can either reinforce the ridge
lift or else dump on to it, and can also generate a fair bit of rotor
in semi-random places.

Even when the wave/rotor is dumping on to the ridge, you can generally
at least keep as high as the ridge, as in this video I shot on my
phone last December:

http://youtu.be/aLCSpVL35Tk

The ridge is at 1000-1200 ft and I could manage 1800 ft or so. I could
stay up but I couldn't get high enough to go anywhere.

Then you've got to make it 3 km back to the field (near the sea,
towards the right hand end of the island in this video) which is not
very far, even in sink.

[Surfer![_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
<snip>
>
> OK.....But the same BASIC technique works for all these
> gliders............LOW ENERGY LANDING.......

This is a fascinating and slightly scary discussion.

I was taught in the UK the BGA way, and the only kind of landing I have been
taught is the fully-held off one - ultimately the glider mushes onto the
ground. Flying on is not considered good as it's all too easy to end up
airborne again if there are lumps and bumps, and the average grass strip or
field usually has plenty of those. Landing in less than 200m is not hard in
just about any glass ship so long as approach speed control was good and
there was at least 1/2 airbrake used. The touchdown is either main wheel
and tail wheel/skid at the same time or tail slightly first. Then it's
right back with the stick (which is just about where it will be if the
landing was really held off) to help keep the ship on the ground, and also
to keep the tail wheel/skid planted as long as possible on things like K21s
to aid directional stability if there is a cross-wind.

Is this what US folks mean by a low-energy landing? If not, what is meant?

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 9/20/2010 11:02 AM, Surfer! wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> <snip>
>>
>> OK.....But the same BASIC technique works for all these
>> gliders............LOW ENERGY LANDING.......
>
> This is a fascinating and slightly scary discussion.
>
> I was taught in the UK the BGA way, and the only kind of landing I have been
> taught is the fully-held off one - ultimately the glider mushes onto the
> ground.
<Descriptive details snipped>
>
> Is this what US folks mean by a low-energy landing? If not, what is meant?

What you've described is *my* (U.S.) idea of a low-energy landing.

As to much of this discussion, kids can you say, "Nuance is difficult to
describe in short paragraphs!" :-) My own take is: KISS (Keep It Simple,
Stupid). The principles *are* simple...the devil's in the descriptive details.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I've overlooked an oddball-configured
glider somewhere, but 'the vast majority of gliders' (including 2-33s, even
those withOUT spring tailwheels) will perform nice, low-energy touchdowns if
successfully landed about an inch in the air...meaning that if they quit
flying 'way up there', nothing's going to get hurt or broken from the fall.
Actual fuselage attitude falls out in the wash...

True for nose-draggers and taildraggers.

Guessing wildly - and not excusing failure to practice low-energy technique
when conditions permit - perhaps one reason some western U.S. glider pilots
rationalize skill in performing low-energy landings isn't 'crucial' is because
it's the norm in these parts for strong, gusting (often, cross)winds to be
present unless landing near dusk, away from any thunderstorms. One's view of
the desirability of a fully held-off landing (especially on paved runways)
probably varies inversely proportionally with the strength of the gusting
crosswind!

My personal record for touchdown speed was a 65+ knot, wheeled-on touchdown
(75+ knot final to maintain a 'reasonable crab angle') in a direct crosswind
of 25-35 knots onto the only (narrow, sans-lights) pavement around - it was
that or hassle with an OFL and a post-sundown retrieve in the same winds (from
a distant T-storm)...15-meter, flapped, no-spoilers ship. About 20-feet of
lateral downwind displacement occurred in the roll-out, despite
(post-touchdown) full downwind rudder, a negative-flap-planted tail wheel,
maximum wheel braking and (eventually) an intentionally dragging downwind tip.
A held-off landing under the circumstances wasn't seriously considered.

Bob W.

[Mark Dickson[_2_]]

At 16:03 20 September 2010, John Smith wrote:
>I followed this discussion for a while now and frankly, I don't
>understand all the fuss. I have never been shown any paritcular landing
>attitude, because this would be meaningless as every glider is
>different. I've just been told to flare that beast, and keep it flying
>as long as possible until it ceases to fly. Ths means increasing the
>angle of attack as the speed decays until the glider falls out of the
>air. Properly built gliders will do so in a two point attitude, some
>more accurate, some less accurate. That's all I've been taught and
>that's how I've been doing it for years. Frankly, I couldn't even tell

>you the landing attitude.
>

At last a sensible post on this subject. The way all gliders should be
landed.

[Ventus_a]

wrote in message
...
snip

OK.....But the same BASIC technique works for all these
gliders............LOW ENERGY LANDING.......

This is a fascinating and slightly scary discussion.

I was taught in the UK the BGA way, and the only kind of landing I have been
taught is the fully-held off one - ultimately the glider mushes onto th
ground. Flying on is not considered good as it's all too easy to end up
airborne again if there are lumps and bumps, and the average grass strip or
field usually has plenty of those. Landing in less than 200m is not hard in
just about any glass ship so long as approach speed control was good and
there was at least 1/2 airbrake used. The touchdown is either main wheel
and tail wheel/skid at the same time or tail slightly first. Then it's
right back with the stick (which is just about where it will be if the
landing was really held off) to help keep the ship on the ground, and also
to keep the tail wheel/skid planted as long as possible on things like K21s
to aid directional stability if there is a cross-wind.

Is this what US folks mean by a low-energy landing? If not, what is meant?

Same way I was taught to land. Works ok. Last OFL was in a Nimbus 3d into a 150m long field over a farm fence. Got it down and stopped in 135m. Duo x that landed before me about 5m less. The nose did touch the ground from some heavy braking at the end of the ground roll but only dirt/mud to clean off. In the picture the crooked trace is the Duo being pushed to the side as I was landing

Colin

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:18:04 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

> On Sep 20, 11:38Â*pm, Martin Gregorie >
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:57:15 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>>
>> > Incidentally, someone landed their Cirrus on a suburban street here
>> > on Sunday morning. They reportedly deliberately used the poles on
>> > either side of a pedestrian crossing to slow down. I believe my
>> > instructors mentioned tree trunks in this context, but whatever...
>>
>> My cousin, who lives in Waikanae, said it was a turbulent, gusty day
>> but none of the reports mention the weather. How would you rate it?
>
> The entire country was covered by a massive storm centered to the south
> of the South Island with strong westerly conditions covering the whole
> 2000 km (north/south) of the country. If you could get high somewhere it
> could well have been a record-setting day. Some supermarkets and a
> stadium in Southland collapsed due to the weight of snow on them. Around
> Auckland and Hamilton trees were coming down and houses losing roofs and
> a lot of people lost electricity. In the middle of the North Island
> there were a lot of slips on to roads.
>
> It wasn't so bad around Wellington and was, fundamentally, a fine day,
> but windy. I wasn't at the club but I'd expect that it was probably
> gusting over 30 knots.
>
> Those are mostly fairly benign conditions at Paraparaumu with smooth air
> coming off the ocean and on to the hills 3 or 4 km inland, and the sea
> cliffs further south. The only real problem is Kapiti Island, 5 km
> offshore, which produces wave which can either reinforce the ridge lift
> or else dump on to it, and can also generate a fair bit of rotor in
> semi-random places.
>
Thanks for the expansion.

BTW, I see that the club sold off Golf Zulu. When did that happen?


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

[Tony V]

> So you are saying that the proper landing technique for a 2-33 is to
> jam the stick forward? Or only this technique in off field
> landings?


I was taught that the skid is used for braking *only* as a last resort
to prevent running into the (inevitable here in the northeast US) trees
at the end of the runway. Following an otherwise low energy landing, of
course.

Tony

[[email protected]]

On Sep 20, 10:49*am, Kevin Christner >
wrote:
> > OK.....But the same BASIC technique works for all these
> > gliders............LOW ENERGY LANDING.......
>
> > Cookie
>
> A proper low energy landing involves a two point (or arguably tail
> first) touchdown. *You cannot teach this in a 2-33. *The euro's laugh
> at us because a not insignificant amount of owners of the newest glass
> ships still can't do a proper low energy landing.
>
> If you feel the need to comment so strongly to this thread you may
> wish to reveal your real identity. *Otherwise we'll have to assume you
> are Lennie the Lurker (and if you don't know who this is, you haven't
> been in soaring, or at least on RAS, long enough to comment on these
> issues)

I agree that a proper low energy landing in MOST gliders is two point
or there about.

Although the 2-33 does not usually land two point, I still can, do,
and have taught low energy landings in 2-33, and the same techniques
carry on to other gliders, with minimum fuss...I do not allow my
students in the 2-33 to do "fly it on landings".

It has been my experience that those who land a 2-33 properly, land
any glider properly. I have also seen glider pilots who never flew a
2-33 but still manage to land improperly. Its not the glider....its
the pilot!!

Owners of the newest glass ships who can't land them properly, should
seek additional training....but this is a "pilot problem" not an
"aircraft problem".

My whole point is in response to the post that implied that a guy
wrecked a Grob, because he learned in a 2-33.......This is a far
fetched conclusion at best...........The guy wrecked the Grob because
he didn't know how to land, period, regardless of the aircraft.

I'm not a huge fan of the 2-33......but please don't blame the poor
glider for things that are not its fault.......

BTW.....I've seen some of those "Euros" fly ........Some are great
pilots, but they have their share of pilots who can't land
too............

As for your second paragraph:

My name is Bob Cook, everyone who knows me, knows me as
"Cookie"......To anybody who doesn't know me, it doesn't matter squat
what my name is.......Now if you want to comapare "years in gliding"
or hours, or experience or whatever, we can go tit for tat........but
that is meaningless..........

Cookie

[ray conlon]

On Sep 20, 10:42*am, Kevin Christner >
wrote:
> > The 2-33 will withstand less than perfect landings by beginners
> > because it is designed to do so as a TRAINER. *We are *all allowed to
> > make mistakes.........The idea is for the student / instructor to work
> > out all these problems early in the program. Once consistant good
> > landings are made in the 2-33 the pilot can then easily adapt to any
> > glider. *If poor landing technique is tolerated in the 2-33 then the
> > less forgiving gliders will show this defeciency.
>
> > But this is all the more arguement for the 2-33 as a trainer, and not
> > using Grob or ASK as a trainer.......
>
> > Cookie
>
> First, I don't see any "argument" there for using the 2-33 as a
> trainer. *The 2-33 flies differently than just about anything else out
> there. *Beyond basic stick and rudder skills, it doesn't prepare the
> pilot to fly anything else. *The rest of the world seems to be able to
> use more modern gliders safely and efficiently without regular damage
> - they also seem to produce better pilots, at least from world
> championship results.
>
> Teaching low energy landings in a 2-33 can be a bit of a trick.
> Because the tail is so high relative to the main wheel there is a
> tendency to go "ground seeking" with the tail leading to the glider
> stalling before the anything touches down and a nice heavy thud.
> Hence, very few true low energy landings are taught in a 2-33
> (somewhere in the low 30's vs. right around 40). *This also doesn't
> prepare for proper 2-points - the angle of attack to 2-point being
> much lower in a ASK-21 or similar.
>
> Another thread states the 2-33 works fine because eventually *some* go
> on to fly glass, *few* go on to fly X-C, and *fewer* fly a contest.
> Again this does not address whether the 2-33 properly prepares pilots
> for the types of gliders they will likely be flying - even the author
> admits that they must first "transition" (translation: retrain) to the
> ASK-21. *This whole process could just be skipped without the
> potential for developing all the sloppy habits that almost come from
> pilots trained in 2-33's.
>
> The only "argument" in this either thread is based on price point.
> And I won't argue with that one.

When only about 4% of the SSA members in this country ever fly in a
contest, the idea of needing high performance trainers seems a bit off
point, those who wish to fly contest, more power too you, the other
96% don't and enjoy or flights just as much.

[Kevin Christner]

> When only about 4% of the SSA members in this country ever fly in a
> contest, the idea of needing high performance trainers seems a bit off
> point, those who wish to fly contest, more power too you, the other
> 96% don't and enjoy or flights just as much.

Thats not the point thats trying to be made here. Just because
someone doesn't go anywhere doesn't mean they don't need to be
properly prepared to fly the wide range of gliders they can buy and
fly, on their own, with no additional requirement beyond a PPL.

It appears about 60-70% of the CFIG commentators would not recommend
the 2-33 for ab-initio training, and 30%-40% would. Out of the later
group, some seem to like the 2-33 more on price point than on its
training qualities. Everyone is welcome to their own opinion, and I
don't think anyone is suggesting you can't have fun flying a 2-33.
That doesn't mean the glider has all the qualities many of us would
like to see, and I think thats the point thats trying to be made.

I think this thread has been hashed out enough. I'm signing off
before more tomatoes fly my way.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Sep 21, 10:05*am, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> BTW, I see that the club sold off Golf Zulu. When did that happen?

That happened about three years ago when a pilot visiting from the UK
wrote it off in a river bed.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 22:21:15 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

> On Sep 21, 10:05Â*am, Martin Gregorie >
> wrote:
>> BTW, I see that the club sold off Golf Zulu. When did that happen?
>
> That happened about three years ago when a pilot visiting from the UK
> wrote it off in a river bed.
>
Bad news, but at least it was repairable: I see its crossed the ranges to
Masterton.


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

[Bruce Hoult]

On Sep 20, 5:57*pm, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
> Incidentally, someone landed their Cirrus on a suburban street here on
> Sunday morning. They reportedly deliberately used the poles on either
> side of a pedestrian crossing to slow down. I believe my instructors
> mentioned tree trunks in this context, but whatever...
>
> http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/glider-pilot-lucky-alive-3785681http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4144370/Glider-lands-on-a-wing-and-a-...http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10674749

Another article a couple of days later:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/local/4147994/Glider-pilots-crash-landing-was-his-second

[Derek C]

On Sep 15, 2:54*pm, John Smith > wrote:
> Am 15.09.10 01:13, schrieb John Cochrane:
>
> > I just talked to John Murray about other stuff, and he mentioned that
> > ASK 21 are actually remarkably easy to get right now. Our club
> > (chicago glider club) just bought a new ASK21, and it's a joy both to
> > fly and teach in.
>
> I don't understand why someone would still buy an ASK21 today when you
> can get a DG1000 or a Duo which offer *much* more performance for little
> more money. And yes, they are perfectly suited for primary training.

Lasham bought a couple of DG1000s as all round trainers. However in
practice they are mostly only used for advanced cross-country
training. From a basic instructional point of view they are too
complicated (tail weights etc), too difficult to get in and out of,
and have awful ground handling (we have the 2 wheel version - the tail
weights a ton). They spin rather too well and lose a lot of height in
the process. We also have a couple of K21s which are great general
purpose gliders, but as basic trainers they are, if anything, too
docile and easy to fly, and won't spin with a normal weight male
student in the front seat. We still use ancient although slightly
updated K13s for most basic training. They do everything tolerably
well, although more performance would be nice.

Derek C

[Surfer![_2_]]

"Derek C" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
>
> Lasham bought a couple of DG1000s as all round trainers. However in
> practice they are mostly only used for advanced cross-country
> training. From a basic instructional point of view they are too
> complicated (tail weights etc), too difficult to get in and out of,
> and have awful ground handling (we have the 2 wheel version - the tail
> weights a ton). They spin rather too well and lose a lot of height in
> the process. We also have a couple of K21s which are great general
> purpose gliders, but as basic trainers they are, if anything, too
> docile and easy to fly, and won't spin with a normal weight male
> student in the front seat. We still use ancient although slightly
> updated K13s for most basic training. They do everything tolerably
> well, although more performance would be nice.

I had the good fortune to get a bimble to Chievley and back last year in the
turbo one. Ground handling is fine with the tail dolly on, but one of the
dollys was defective so we had to go to the launch point to get the one that
was OK. The tail is no heavier than my glider, and if you sit someone on
the cockpit rail lifting it to get the dolly on is pretty easy.

I agree it's difficult to get into, especially for the short of leg, and
there is the danger of falling into the canopy which of course would
probably do a lot of damage. All that needs is one of those plastic steps.
That high wheel (assuming it doesn't collapse!) must be a great asset for a
field landing if the stuff in the field isn't ideally short.

We didn't spin it, nor did it feel anywhere near spinning at reasonable XC
and thermalling speeds - unless it doesn't have a pre-stall buffet.

Tail weights are IMHO a big improvement over water - for one thing no
problem if it's going to be sub-zero - for another they are quicker to
change than pouring water in or extracting it from a 500/505.

I found the DG1000 was easy to fly and very easy to land - it has massively
powerful airbrakes and wheel brake, there was no problem landing it in a
small area from a position that was really too high and too close.

However it's never ever going to be a primary trainer, as you wouldn't send
someone for their first solo in it.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Sep 23, 5:26*pm, Derek C > wrote:
> Lasham bought a couple of DG1000s as all round trainers. However in
> practice they are mostly only used for advanced cross-country
> training. From a basic instructional point of view they are too
> complicated (tail weights etc), too difficult to get in and out of,

That's why we got two of the fixed undercarriage version. Much much
easier to get in and out, no possibility of wheel up landings, only
very slightly more expensive than an ASK21, and still far better
performance than an ASK21 or Grob. Pretty similar to the 18m Janus we
sold to finance them, but without the flaps, horrid control balance,
or CofG hook.

http://soar.co.nz/dgsmall.JPG

> and have awful ground handling (we have the 2 wheel version - the tail
> weights a ton).

The fixed undercarriage version is a lot lighter on the tail. Optimum
CofG sees it essentially balanced on the main wheel, and very light on
either the tail or nose wheel.

We don't faf about with the weights much. Most of the time we have 4
or 5 kg in the tail and just leave them there, giving a similar
cockpit load range to any other glider. But the option is there if you
want it and we certainly do it if there's going to be an extra large
or small person in the front.

> They spin rather too well and lose a lot of height in the process.

Sure, but it's not as if it's without a lot of warning! I've done
plenty of time in small and bumpy thermals in ours and never had any
problem. You're very clearly into inefficient mushing and buffeting
long before there's a wing drop.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Sep 23, 6:15*pm, "Surfer!" > wrote:
> However it's never ever going to be a primary trainer, as you wouldn't send
> someone for their first solo in it.

We've sent a number of people on first solos in our DG1000s in the 3
1/2 years in which they've been our only training aircraft!

One of them (at least) even did a fair bit of her training in a
borrowed Blanik for a few months after we'd sold the Grobs and the
DG1000's hadn't arrived yet.

[Ventus_a]

;742009']"Derek C" wrote in message
...
snip[color=blue][i]

Lasham bought a couple of DG1000s as all round trainers. However in
practice they are mostly only used for advanced cross-country
training. From a basic instructional point of view they are too
complicated (tail weights etc), too difficult to get in and out of,
and have awful ground handling (we have the 2 wheel version - the tail
weights a ton).

I found the DG1000 was easy to fly and very easy to land - it has massively
powerful airbrakes and wheel brake, there was no problem landing it in a
small area from a position that was really too high and too close.

However it's never ever going to be a primary trainer, as you wouldn't send
someone for their first solo in it.



I knew a couple of ladies who both did all their ab initio training and first/early solo flying in a Janus A. How does it compare to the DG1000 for ease of flying? I have some Janus time but none in the DG

Colin

[Surfer![_2_]]

"Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
...
> On Sep 23, 6:15 pm, "Surfer!" > wrote:
>> However it's never ever going to be a primary trainer, as you wouldn't
>> send
>> someone for their first solo in it.
>
> We've sent a number of people on first solos in our DG1000s in the 3
> 1/2 years in which they've been our only training aircraft!

If they are your only training aircraft you don't have much choice! I
gather from your later post these are the club version with fixed u/c rather
than the version that Lasham have.



> One of them (at least) even did a fair bit of her training in a
> borrowed Blanik for a few months after we'd sold the Grobs and the
> DG1000's hadn't arrived yet.

[John Smith]

Surfer! wrote:
> We didn't spin it, nor did it feel anywhere near spinning at reasonable
> XC and thermalling speeds - unless it doesn't have a pre-stall buffet.

It doesn't buffet, it just gets mushy on the controls. But it doesn't
drop a wing by itself unless you stomp the rudder. However if you do,
then it does spin.

> Tail weights are IMHO a big improvement over water - for one thing no

You don't need to add any tail ballast for instruction. Adding proper
ballast does improve the handling, but it isn't needed. Personally, I
think it's a fine idea to show the students right from day one that
there is such a thing as a CofG with which you can tinker.

>there was no problem landing it in a small area from a position
> that was really too high and too close.

One could even argue that it has too powerful airbrakes for primary
instruction. Learning in a DG1000 spoils you for the Duo...

> as you wouldn't send someone for their first solo in it.

Why not?

[Derek C]

On Sep 23, 8:24*am, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
> On Sep 23, 5:26*pm, Derek C > wrote:
>
> > Lasham bought a couple of DG1000s as all round trainers. However in
> > practice they are mostly only used for advanced cross-country
> > training. From a basic instructional point of view they are too
> > complicated (tail weights etc), too difficult to get in and out of,
>
> That's why we got two of the fixed undercarriage version. *Much much
> easier to get in and out, no possibility of wheel up landings, only
> very slightly more expensive than an ASK21, and still far better
> performance than an ASK21 or Grob. *Pretty similar to the 18m Janus we
> sold to finance them, but without the flaps, horrid control balance,
> or CofG hook.
>
> http://soar.co.nz/dgsmall.JPG
>
> > and have awful ground handling (we have the 2 wheel version - the tail
> > weights a ton).
>
> The fixed undercarriage version is a lot lighter on the tail. Optimum
> CofG sees it essentially balanced on the main wheel, and very light on
> either the tail or nose wheel.
>
> We don't faf about with the weights much. Most of the time we have 4
> or 5 kg in the tail and just leave them there, giving a similar
> cockpit load range to any other glider. But the option is there if you
> want it and we certainly do it if there's going to be an extra large
> or small person in the front.
>
> > They spin rather too well and lose a lot of height in the process.
>
> Sure, but it's not as if it's without a lot of warning! *I've done
> plenty of *time in small and bumpy thermals in ours and never had any
> problem. You're very clearly into inefficient mushing and buffeting
> long before there's a wing drop.

The three wheeler version also has issues, including much longer take
off and landing runs (due to the small angle of incidence of the wing
to the fuselage) and the possibility of tail damage from snatched
winch launches slamming the tail wheel onto the ground. The DG1000 is
lovely to fly and is very docile right down to the stall, at which
point it can drop a wing and depart into a spin without much warning.
The spin can go flat and take some time to recover. It is not a glider
you would want to deliberately spin much below 3000ft.

People with very short or very long arms have problems operating the
retractable undercarriage. It is difficult to lock down and we have
had numerous undercarriage collapses on touchdown when pilots have
failed to do so properly. There is no obvious detent to ensure that
the U/C is locked down. The latest versions have an electrically
operated retractable undercarriage,which says it all!

On the plus side it has very powerful airbrakes and K13 trained pilots
have no difficulty (apart from the U/C) in converting to it, unlike
our Duo Discus which tends to run away with them on approach.

Derek C

[Jon Arnold]

The ASK 13 is probably the best and simplest glider to operate effectively
as a twoseat trainer. not necassarily the best for prepping pilots to fly
slippery glass single seaters. However it does exactly what it says on the
tin and if, you can fly a K13 well and accurately then you can prpobably
fly most other gliders too that the potential pilot will progress to
next.


At 22:23 23 September 2010, Derek C wrote:
>On Sep 23, 8:24=A0am, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>> On Sep 23, 5:26=A0pm, Derek C wrote:
>>
>> > Lasham bought a couple of DG1000s as all round trainers. However in
>> > practice they are mostly only used for advanced cross-country
>> > training. From a basic instructional point of view they are too
>> > complicated (tail weights etc), too difficult to get in and out of,
>>
>> That's why we got two of the fixed undercarriage version. =A0Much
much
>> easier to get in and out, no possibility of wheel up landings, only
>> very slightly more expensive than an ASK21, and still far better
>> performance than an ASK21 or Grob. =A0Pretty similar to the 18m Janus
we
>> sold to finance them, but without the flaps, horrid control balance,
>> or CofG hook.
>>
>> http://soar.co.nz/dgsmall.JPG
>>
>> > and have awful ground handling (we have the 2 wheel version - the
tail
>> > weights a ton).
>>
>> The fixed undercarriage version is a lot lighter on the tail. Optimum
>> CofG sees it essentially balanced on the main wheel, and very light on
>> either the tail or nose wheel.
>>
>> We don't faf about with the weights much. Most of the time we have 4
>> or 5 kg in the tail and just leave them there, giving a similar
>> cockpit load range to any other glider. But the option is there if you
>> want it and we certainly do it if there's going to be an extra large
>> or small person in the front.
>>
>> > They spin rather too well and lose a lot of height in the process.
>>
>> Sure, but it's not as if it's without a lot of warning! =A0I've
done
>> plenty of =A0time in small and bumpy thermals in ours and never had
any
>> problem. You're very clearly into inefficient mushing and buffeting
>> long before there's a wing drop.
>
>The three wheeler version also has issues, including much longer take
>off and landing runs (due to the small angle of incidence of the wing
>to the fuselage) and the possibility of tail damage from snatched
>winch launches slamming the tail wheel onto the ground. The DG1000 is
>lovely to fly and is very docile right down to the stall, at which
>point it can drop a wing and depart into a spin without much warning.
>The spin can go flat and take some time to recover. It is not a glider
>you would want to deliberately spin much below 3000ft.
>
>People with very short or very long arms have problems operating the
>retractable undercarriage. It is difficult to lock down and we have
>had numerous undercarriage collapses on touchdown when pilots have
>failed to do so properly. There is no obvious detent to ensure that
>the U/C is locked down. The latest versions have an electrically
>operated retractable undercarriage,which says it all!
>
>On the plus side it has very powerful airbrakes and K13 trained pilots
>have no difficulty (apart from the U/C) in converting to it, unlike
>our Duo Discus which tends to run away with them on approach.
>
>Derek C
>

[Berry[_2_]]

In article >,
Jon Arnold > wrote:

> The ASK 13 is probably the best and simplest glider to operate effectively
> as a twoseat trainer. not necassarily the best for prepping pilots to fly
> slippery glass single seaters. However it does exactly what it says on the
> tin and if, you can fly a K13 well and accurately then you can prpobably
> fly most other gliders too that the potential pilot will progress to
> next.
>


About the only thing keeping the ASK-7 and -13's from being the best
trainers for the money is that their cockpits were not designed for the
"modern" physique.

[kirk.stant]

On Nov 5, 8:58*am, Berry > wrote:
>
> About the only thing keeping the ASK-7 and -13's from being the best
> trainers for the money is that their cockpits were not designed for the
> "modern" physique.

Well, I have a "modern" physique (love that euphemism!), and I fit in
our K-13 just fine. The back seat of a 2-33, OTOH, is painful.

I totally agree that the K-13 is a great primary trainer. It suffers,
in the US at least, from being made from first-generation composites
(i.e. wood and fabric), which is absurd in most parts of the US where
it will outlast it's pilots!

And, as the original poster mentioned, requires a bit of conversion
when moving up to more slippery glass.

Perhaps we can import a bunch of K-13s from Europe to replace our
grounded Blanik L-13s?

Maybe we should convince someone to put the 2-32 back in production -
now there is a glider with room for the well fed pilot &
passenger(s)! And it spins!

Kirk
66

[Jim Logajan]

"noel.wade" > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 10:14*am, "Surfer!" > wrote:
>>
>> But since the Schweizer seems to be the training ship of choice in
>> most U
> S
>> clubs that shouldn't be a surprise. *It's certainly not (IMHO) an
>> endorsement of them.
>
> I couldn't agree more! As a "younger" glider pilot myself (29 when I
> started), let me make a few assertions:
>
> 1) Do you think you can get *ANY* young person interested in soaring
> if what they see is a 2-33? After playing any modern computer game?
> After watching movies like "The Fast and the Furious"? The 2-33 looks
> like a dog and flies slowly.

I started lessons when I was 52. I didn't have a problem with the club's
2-33 because it is possible I'm not a shallow youth anymore. ;-)

More seriously, I'm doubtful that anyone (young or old) would even consider
gliders in any way, shape, or form if they were motivated by speed.

If the argument had any validity, it could be turned into a counter
argument that claims 2-33's would winnow out those who have not yet matured
- and lack of maturity leads to poor aeronautical decision making, leading
in turn to death, destruction, and the collapse of civilization - all
because too many young whipper snappers got themselves killed flying like
crazed kids. And all for lack of 2-33's to teach them some humility! :-)

[Grider Pirate]

On Nov 5, 1:44*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> "noel.wade" > wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 10:14 am, "Surfer!" > wrote:
>
> >> But since the Schweizer seems to be the training ship of choice in
> >> most U
> > S
> >> clubs that shouldn't be a surprise. It's certainly not (IMHO) an
> >> endorsement of them.
>
> > I couldn't agree more! *As a "younger" glider pilot myself (29 when I
> > started), let me make a few assertions:
>
> > 1) Do you think you can get *ANY* young person interested in soaring
> > if what they see is a 2-33? After playing any modern computer game?
> > After watching movies like "The Fast and the Furious"? *The 2-33 looks
> > like a dog and flies slowly.
>
> I started lessons when I was 52. I didn't have a problem with the club's
> 2-33 because it is possible I'm not a shallow youth anymore. ;-)
>
> More seriously, I'm doubtful that anyone (young or old) would even consider
> gliders in any way, shape, or form if they were motivated by speed.
>
> If the argument had any validity, it could be turned into a counter
> argument that claims 2-33's would winnow out those who have not yet matured
> - and lack of maturity leads to poor aeronautical decision making, leading
> in turn to death, destruction, and the collapse of civilization - all
> because too many young whipper snappers got themselves killed flying like
> crazed kids. And all for lack of 2-33's to teach them some humility! *:-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I was 47 when I took my first glider lesson. All my flying (a lot! I
was a terribly slow learner!) up to my check ride was in a 2-33. After
I got my ticket, I flew the 1-26 a bit, but took several training
flights in the G103. Yes, flying the big Grob is different from flying
the 2-33, but that's why they put an instructor in the back seat for
several flights in the Grob. I think the instructors make more
difference than the glider.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:44:18 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

> "noel.wade" > wrote:
>> On Sep 15, 10:14Â*am, "Surfer!" > wrote:
>>>
>>> But since the Schweizer seems to be the training ship of choice in
>>> most U
>> S
>>> clubs that shouldn't be a surprise. Â*It's certainly not (IMHO) an
>>> endorsement of them.
>>
>> I couldn't agree more! As a "younger" glider pilot myself (29 when I
>> started), let me make a few assertions:
>>
>> 1) Do you think you can get *ANY* young person interested in soaring if
>> what they see is a 2-33? After playing any modern computer game? After
>> watching movies like "The Fast and the Furious"? The 2-33 looks like a
>> dog and flies slowly.
>
> I started lessons when I was 52. I didn't have a problem with the club's
> 2-33 because it is possible I'm not a shallow youth anymore. ;-)
>
I started learning when I was 54, and that was certainly thanks to a ride
in an ASK-21. I'd had a couple of trial flights 8-10 years previously in
an ASK-13, but though it was a nice experience it didn't inspire me to
take up gliding. However, and I don't know why, that flight in an ASK-21
in the fall of '99 at Front Royale set the hook and I joined Cambridge GC
in the UK at the start of the 2000 season, picking them for no better
reason than they were the only local club with a glass training fleet. As
it happened I couldn't have chosen better given the club's strong xc
culture. This became apparent at the 2001 Regionals when I got my first
cross-country ride in the club's G103: I had a ring-side seat as my P1
won the day on handicap.


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

[Derek C]

On Nov 5, 10:02*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:44:18 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
> > "noel.wade" > wrote:
> >> On Sep 15, 10:14*am, "Surfer!" > wrote:
>
> >>> But since the Schweizer seems to be the training ship of choice in
> >>> most U
> >> S
> >>> clubs that shouldn't be a surprise. *It's certainly not (IMHO) an
> >>> endorsement of them.
>
> >> I couldn't agree more! *As a "younger" glider pilot myself (29 when I
> >> started), let me make a few assertions:
>
> >> 1) Do you think you can get *ANY* young person interested in soaring if
> >> what they see is a 2-33? After playing any modern computer game? After
> >> watching movies like "The Fast and the Furious"? *The 2-33 looks like a
> >> dog and flies slowly.
>
> > I started lessons when I was 52. I didn't have a problem with the club's
> > 2-33 because it is possible I'm not a shallow youth anymore. ;-)
>
> I started learning when I was 54, and that was certainly thanks to a ride
> in an ASK-21. I'd had a couple of trial flights 8-10 years previously in
> an ASK-13, but though it was a nice experience it didn't inspire me to
> take up gliding. However, and I don't know why, that flight in an ASK-21
> in the fall of '99 at Front Royale set the hook and I joined Cambridge GC
> in the UK at the start of the 2000 season, picking them for no better
> reason than they were the only local club with a glass training fleet. As
> it happened I couldn't have chosen better given the club's strong xc
> culture. This became apparent at the 2001 Regionals when I got my first
> cross-country ride in the club's G103: I had a ring-side seat as my P1
> won the day on handicap.
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I started learning to glide in 1981 at the age of 35 in K13s. I went
solo on my 40th flight within three months of starting, and got an
instructor rating in 1985. However I felt that K13s with their wooden
skids looked a bit antique even back then. Our club still has two of
the same K13s as we had back then, plus seven newer ones. Most of them
have had nose wheel conversions, which makes them look fractionally
more modern, but not exactly inspiring. Tall people have difficulty in
fitting into the front seat. Unfortunately no manufacturer has yet
come up with a decent glass 2-seater trainer that ticks all the boxes
that a K13 can.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 11/5/2010 4:02 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:44:18 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> > wrote:
>>>
<Snip...>
>>>
>>> 1) Do you think you can get *ANY* young person interested in soaring if
>>> what they see is a 2-33? After playing any modern computer game? After
>>> watching movies like "The Fast and the Furious"? The 2-33 looks like a
>>> dog and flies slowly.
>>
>> I started lessons when I was 52. I didn't have a problem with the club's
>> 2-33 because it is possible I'm not a shallow youth anymore. ;-)
>>
> I started learning when I was 54, and that was certainly thanks to a ride
> in an ASK-21. I'd had a couple of trial flights 8-10 years previously in
> an ASK-13, but though it was a nice experience it didn't inspire me to
> take up gliding. However, and I don't know why, that flight in an ASK-21
> in the fall of '99 at Front Royale set the hook and I joined Cambridge GC
> in the UK at the start of the 2000 season, picking them for no better
> reason than they were the only local club with a glass training fleet. As
> it happened I couldn't have chosen better given the club's strong xc
> culture. This became apparent at the 2001 Regionals when I got my first
> cross-country ride in the club's G103: I had a ring-side seat as my P1
> won the day on handicap.
>
>
OK, I'm convinced. Having as many as possible intro gliders into soaring is
better than having fewer...regardless of WHAT the intro gliders look like! :)

Bob - options are good - W.

P.S. Now I'm ready to be convinced it makes economic sense within our
non-growing sport to junk perfectly functional sailplanes - i.e. sailplanes
that meet *some* (or they'd've been retired already) real club/commercial
operator needs - in favor of replacements carrying considerably higher
up-front replacement/ongoing insurance costs, just because the former were
designed before 'ergonomics' gained favor!

[sisu1a]

> I started learning when I was 54, and that was certainly thanks to a ride
> in an ASK-21. I'd had a couple of trial flights 8-10 years previously in
> an ASK-13, but though it was a nice experience it didn't inspire me to
> take up gliding. However, and I don't know why, that flight in an ASK-21
> in the fall of '99 at Front Royale set the hook and I joined Cambridge GC
> in the UK at the start of the 2000 season, picking them for no better
> reason than they were the only local club with a glass training fleet.

Just met a fellow at a garage sale where I was blabbering about
gliders, and this guy tells me his story of how he had seen beautiful
gliders for years here and there in movies (Thomas Crown remake?) and
TV specials and such and was really intrigued by them, so much so that
he looked up a close by operation and went to Vacaville CA sometime
in the 90's (no longer in operation...) to finally treat himself and
possibly take it up. He got to the field and was pretty exited, and
made arrangements with the folks there. Then him and his pilot walked
out the their plane. They were walking past all these gorgeous glass
ships that were fueling his fancy -and kept going past them, to what
by his description of what he remembered could only have been a 2-33.
His heart sank, he lost his inspiration as well as his confidence;
enough so that he didn't go through with the flight and lost the spark
of interest.

The interesting thing about this story to me, was how he told it to me
on his own volition, out of the complete blue. I was only talking
about positive aspects of gliding and my own joys etc with it. It was
so very random for him to tell me that, which for me further
reinforces my thoughts about the influence visual dynamics has on
mental dynamics... I've seen other people be this guy, and frankly I
felt the same way when we walked past the 21 and the 103, to a lonely
2-33 on it's own pad, which made it clear what plane we were going to
be using for flight training -and which ones we were not. Yeah I
stuck with it, but it I would be lying if I said I wasn't crestfallen
when I went for the same walk...

-Paul

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 11/6/2010 2:35 PM, Bob Whelan wrote:
> On 11/5/2010 4:02 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:44:18 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
>>
>>> > wrote:
>>>>
> <Snip...>
>>>>
>>>> 1) Do you think you can get *ANY* young person interested in
>>>> soaring if
>>>> what they see is a 2-33? After playing any modern computer game? After
>>>> watching movies like "The Fast and the Furious"? The 2-33 looks
>>>> like a
>>>> dog and flies slowly.
>>>
>>> I started lessons when I was 52. I didn't have a problem with the
>>> club's
>>> 2-33 because it is possible I'm not a shallow youth anymore. ;-)
>>>
>> I started learning when I was 54, and that was certainly thanks to a
>> ride
>> in an ASK-21. I'd had a couple of trial flights 8-10 years previously in
>> an ASK-13, but though it was a nice experience it didn't inspire me to
>> take up gliding. However, and I don't know why, that flight in an ASK-21
>> in the fall of '99 at Front Royale set the hook and I joined
>> Cambridge GC
>> in the UK at the start of the 2000 season, picking them for no better
>> reason than they were the only local club with a glass training
>> fleet. As
>> it happened I couldn't have chosen better given the club's strong xc
>> culture. This became apparent at the 2001 Regionals when I got my first
>> cross-country ride in the club's G103: I had a ring-side seat as my P1
>> won the day on handicap.
>>
>>
> OK, I'm convinced. Having as many as possible intro gliders into
> soaring is better than having fewer...regardless of WHAT the intro
> gliders look like! :)
>
> Bob - options are good - W.
>
> P.S. Now I'm ready to be convinced it makes economic sense within our
> non-growing sport to junk perfectly functional sailplanes - i.e.
> sailplanes that meet *some* (or they'd've been retired already) real
> club/commercial operator needs - in favor of replacements carrying
> considerably higher up-front replacement/ongoing insurance costs, just
> because the former were designed before 'ergonomics' gained favor!

Our club had an ASK 13; later, it had a Blanik L13. An ASK 21 might have
helped us get a few more members, but what we really needed was a
tricycle gear towplane! Over the years, it got harder and harder to find
pilots with enough tail dragger time to fly the tow plane. So, towards
the end of club's existence, the club glider, the private gliders, and
the tow plane often sat on the ground because we couldn't find a tow
pilot for the day.

If we'd had a trike gear airplane, like the 150 hp Cessna 150 we
rejected in favor of the Citabria when we bought our tow plane, we
would've had pilots fighting for the chance to do tows.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 03:49 07 November 2010, sisu1a wrote:
>
> They were walking past all these gorgeous glass
>ships that were fueling his fancy -and kept going past them, to what
>by his description of what he remembered could only have been a 2-33.
>His heart sank, he lost his inspiration as well as his confidence;
>enough so that he didn't go through with the flight and lost the spark
>of interest.

Gotta feel sorry for somebody with so little imagination. I transitioned
from power to gliders in 1975, and trained almost exclusively in 2-33s
(and the occasional Blanik). Perhaps it was different, already being a
pilot, but the first revelation of what even a ratty old 2-33 could do in
the air was amazing. So it didn't look all that great, it had those big,
big wings. And when you're inside the heap, it doesn't look so bad.
Like the man said,

My face, I don't mind it,
For I am behind it.
It's the people in front whom I jar.

Jim Beckman

[Burt Compton - Marfa]

On Nov 7, 5:52*am, Jim Beckman > wrote:

> Gotta feel sorry for somebody with so little imagination. *I transitioned
> from power to gliders in 1975, and trained almost exclusively in 2-33s
> (and the occasional Blanik). *Perhaps it was different, already being a
> pilot, but the first revelation of what even a ratty old 2-33 could do in
> the air was amazing. *So it didn't look all that great, it had those big,
> big wings. *And when you're inside the heap, it doesn't look so bad.


As a kid 5 decades ago, I asked my Dad for a new Schwinn 10 speed
bicycle for Christmas.
I got a balloon tire hand-me-down instead. I fixed it up, rode far
and wide on it and I was very happy.
In high school I longed for a 1967 Porsche, but got a 1956 Volkswagen.
Sure had fun in that VW back seat at the drive-in movies.
Later I saw a new Datsun 240Z, but settled for a Mercury Capri.
Sure had a lot of fun in it cruising the Florida Keys.
In 1968 I soloed a 2-33 at the Schweizer school in Elmira, NY.
Ran the ridge at Harris Hill. Sure had fun and I'll never forget that
day.

My old bike, the '56 Volkswagen, the 2-33; just means to an end to be
one with the machine, one with the world.

Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
seem valid to me, but that's just me.
I don't care to argue about it. Nobody is wrong. If you can afford to
buy a nice lookin' glider for your club, then buy it for them.

Then again, if you younger folks want to fly something "pretty" down
in southwest Texas . . . you know where I am.

Burt
Marfa Gliders Soaring Center
ASK-13, DG-1000T, Blanik L-23 (for sale, soon to be replaced by a new
ASK-21.)

P.S. By the way, I'd love to find a really nice Schweizer 2-22 -- now
THAT is a cool lookin' glider! A Grunau Baby would be amazing to own!
Talk about "SOUL" -- those old, ugly gliders (and for that matter the
older gals) have it!

Sing Along (funky style): "It's not what you look like when you're
doin' what you're doin'. It's what you're doin', when you're doin',
what you look like you're doin'."
"Express Yourself" - Charles Wright and the Watts 103rd Street Rhythm
Band (1970, and sounds fine on something called a "vinyl record".)

[Scott Lamont]

On Nov 6, 4:35*pm, Bob Whelan > wrote:

>
> OK, I'm convinced. Having as many as possible intro gliders into soaring is
> better than having fewer...regardless of WHAT the intro gliders look like! :)
>
>
Just as a side note, the Greater Boston Soaring Club (GBSC) will be
putting our three L-23s and our Puchacz to bed for the season in a
couple of weeks, but the club's 2-33 will be flown all winter for
instructional flights whenever the weekend weather allows. Our
students may fly the Blaniks all Summer, but from November to March
the 2-33 is the only 2-place glider flying in New England. If it broke
tomorrow, we'd be scrambling to find another one the day after that.
Of course we also put our single-place L-33, B-4, and 1-34 gliders in
storage and fly our 1-26 all winter, but god forbid we open THAT can
of worms!

Scott

[bildan]

> Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
> seem valid to me, but that's just me.

This isn't about us - we became glider pilots in spite of difficulties
and discouragements. For us, It really didn't matter much what
trainer was used because we really, really wanted to fly. We need to
look less at why we became glider pilots and more at why vast numbers
DIDN'T become glider pilots. I'd guess that for every one of us there
are many more who just walked away. Those missing pilots are why the
number of glider pilots are decreasing.

To use skiing as an example again, that sport existed for decades with
hard-core enthusiasts using wooden ski's and rope tows but didn't make
the big time until equipment and facilities were drastically
improved. Clever marketers who concentrated on improving the
"customer experience" made it a multi-billion dollar sport. Soaring
has the same potential.

This discussion should be about the thousands, perhaps tens of
thousands, who didn't become glider pilots because they were put off
by unattractive gliders, trashy operations etc...

Yesterday I gave 6 young people their first rides in an ASK-21 - they
all wanted more. However, at lunch break, I couldn't help noticing
the picnic table was 6 feet from an overflowing garbage can. We can
do better.

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Nov 7, 10:13*am, bildan > wrote:
> > Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
> > seem valid to me, but that's just me.
> This discussion should be about the thousands, perhaps tens of
> thousands, who didn't become glider pilots because they were put off
> by unattractive gliders, trashy operations etc...
>
> Yesterday I gave 6 young people their first rides in an ASK-21 - they
> all wanted more. *However, at lunch break, I couldn't help noticing
> the picnic table was 6 feet from an overflowing garbage can. *We can
> do better.

There is a tendency around soaring to mistake what we want, and what
we think people should want, with what they actually do want.
The world has changed. People have more money, less time, and higher
expectations. And many more choices. We can tell them they should want
something different, but they vote with their feet.

The real question should be, what about self launch. My ideal trainer
is the ASK21 with motor. It's much more economical on time, the thing
we are all short of. Alas our airport is too short.

John Cochrane

[bildan]

On Nov 7, 10:42*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> On Nov 7, 10:13*am, bildan > wrote:
>
> > > Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
> > > seem valid to me, but that's just me.
> > This discussion should be about the thousands, perhaps tens of
> > thousands, who didn't become glider pilots because they were put off
> > by unattractive gliders, trashy operations etc...
>
> > Yesterday I gave 6 young people their first rides in an ASK-21 - they
> > all wanted more. *However, at lunch break, I couldn't help noticing
> > the picnic table was 6 feet from an overflowing garbage can. *We can
> > do better.
>
> There is a tendency around soaring to mistake what we want, and what
> we think people should want, with what they actually do want.
> The world has changed. People have more money, less time, and higher
> expectations. And many more choices. We can tell them they should want
> something different, but they vote with their feet.
>
> The real question should be, what about self launch. My ideal trainer
> is the ASK21 with motor. It's much more economical on time, the thing
> we are all short of. Alas our airport is too short.
>
> John Cochrane

Agreed, John.

Aero tow corresponds to skiing's rope tow - it's slow and requires
skill. Self launch corresponds to helicopter skiing - fast, exclusive
and expensive. For those of us with less money, more time and room,
there's winch launch which might be said as corresponding to a chair
lift.

To this I would add instructor supervised simulator training. This is
a proven adjunct to pilot training which can be done anywhere, anytime
with no weather or equipment restrictions. With the loss of 50% of
our training fleet due to the L-13 grounding, I'd think this would be
an attractive option for a lot of people. With a data projector
(beamer) it lends itself to classroom sessions with a number of
student pilots in attendance. The use of simulators can
significantly reduce the demands on scarce training gliders.

Bill Daniels

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 11/7/2010 8:06 AM, Scott Lamont wrote:
> On Nov 6, 4:35 pm, Bob > wrote:
>
>
> Just as a side note, the Greater Boston Soaring Club (GBSC) will be
> putting our three L-23s and our Puchacz to bed for the season in a
> couple of weeks, but the club's 2-33 will be flown all winter for
> instructional flights whenever the weekend weather allows. Our
> students may fly the Blaniks all Summer, but from November to March
> the 2-33 is the only 2-place glider flying in New England.
>
Why don't you fly the Blaniks in the Winter?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)

[Darryl Ramm]

On Nov 7, 9:42*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> On Nov 7, 10:13*am, bildan > wrote:
>
> > > Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
> > > seem valid to me, but that's just me.
> > This discussion should be about the thousands, perhaps tens of
> > thousands, who didn't become glider pilots because they were put off
> > by unattractive gliders, trashy operations etc...
>
> > Yesterday I gave 6 young people their first rides in an ASK-21 - they
> > all wanted more. *However, at lunch break, I couldn't help noticing
> > the picnic table was 6 feet from an overflowing garbage can. *We can
> > do better.
>
> There is a tendency around soaring to mistake what we want, and what
> we think people should want, with what they actually do want.
> The world has changed. People have more money, less time, and higher
> expectations. And many more choices. We can tell them they should want
> something different, but they vote with their feet.
>
> The real question should be, what about self launch. My ideal trainer
> is the ASK21 with motor. It's much more economical on time, the thing
> we are all short of. Alas our airport is too short.
>
> John Cochrane

I think that as an ab-initio trainer (up until you work on XC) the
ASK-21 is hard to beat, like all round really hard to beat. But as an
an owner of a beautiful ASH-26E self-launch glider I'd be careful
about thinking of an ASK-21Mi as a club/FBO instructional glider. And
I'm not sure exactly is meant by using a self-launch glider for
instruction... For primary instruction I'm very dubious and for XC/
advanced stuff you really want something with more legs than the
ASK-21 (and remember the ASK-21Mi is effectively fully ballasted with
water you cannot dump), and even then I think new XC pilots are better
off in a conventional glider (and landing out a few times...).

The motors in typical retracting mast motoglider are just not anywhere
near the same durability as you'll find in a typical C150 or Pawnee or
other towplane. Many of these gliders with engines with 100 hours on
them would be considered "high time". Tasking these specialized
gliders and using them for high-duty trainers would be the last thing
I would want to do for many reasons. A taste....

- Slight cross winds especially quartering tailwinds will give you
handling problem that you'd never expedience with a tow plane to
follow.

- You'll need an intercom for safe communications and reducing the
potential of hearing damage - another hassle to deal with.

- Mast retraction and engine cooldown proceedures are additional
workload for many motorgliders and will cramp some high cycle training
flights.

- I'd also have concerns about climb performance of a two-seater with
two "American weight" folks on board especially at high density
altitudes.

- For folks at the higher end of that "American normal" weight you are
going to run up against W&B limits.

- Incorrect cooldown, or forgetting to check the oil (or forgetting to
secure the oil cap after that check) or forgetting to adding the oil
premix (for the two stroke engines) to the fuel and you might be
answering the other question about what a new engine or rebuild costs
(want a guess... $10k-$30k depending on type and how much damage and
what ancillary systems also need replacing). Clubs/FBOS have to
maintain towplanes and they are more complex than conventional gliders
but they get exposed a lot less to students and others making
mistakes.

- Motorgliders also tend to be maintenance fussy, require some
detailed knowledge, good access to other experienced owners and the
factory and occasionally special tools, engine test/run stands etc.
There are very few service centers in the USA who can work on typical
motorgliders (that I'd trust) -- and often engine rebuilds are needed
to/best done at the engine factory.

---

None of this is specific to Schleicher - other self launchers,
especially retracting mast ones, will have may similar and likely
other operations issues -- including electrics, jets etc. A good old
towplane with relatively understandable ownership costs and utility
would be my first choice. I'd also not be rushing to do primary glider
training in a touring motorglider (unless that pilot was dead set on
buying and flying that type. Us of winches to lower costs are a
separate topic. Oh and add in commercial operators need a certified
two seat motorglider which for them will thin the field a bit. Current
insurance under the SSA plan for a private motorglider owner is pretty
easy to get but as a policy owner who will be affected by rising
prices, I really hope underwriters would look at what I expect are
increased risks involved in doing primary glider instruction
especially in a retracting mast glider.

The ASK-21Mi on the other hand should be an excellent trainer platform
(with dual seat engine controls) for self launch endorsements, self-
launch proficiency training etc. But that is a pretty small market.
Its a worry that many of us who needed self-launch endorsements end up
doing them in touring motorgliders which have significant different
operation, handling and saftey issues.

Now I'm sure there will be some folks out there that we'll hear from
here that are doing instruction in an ASK-21Mi or similar today, I
could see it might sense more for very small clubs with memberships
with high equity ownership and high amounts of supervision, especially
if members want to move up to other motorgliders but in general I
think a bad idea.

Darryl

[bildan]

On Nov 7, 1:30*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> A good old
> towplane with relatively understandable ownership costs and utility
> would be my first choice.

I wouldn't strongly disagree but there are significantly less than 200
- perhaps as few as 160 - tow planes in the US and little chance of
increasing that number in the short term. If the sport were to
suddenly expand, we may find ourselves waiting a long time for tows.
The last 1800' tow I bought from a commercial operator cost $55 which
is absolutely reducing flying.

Moving training to winches makes sense especially since the ASK-21 is
arguably the worlds best winch glider. (The 2-33 is arguably the
worst.)

[Darryl Ramm]

On Nov 7, 1:26*pm, bildan > wrote:
> On Nov 7, 1:30*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > A good old
> > towplane with relatively understandable ownership costs and utility
> > would be my first choice.
>
> I wouldn't strongly disagree but there are significantly less than 200
> - perhaps as few as 160 - tow planes in the US and little chance of
> increasing that number in the short term. *If the sport were to
> suddenly expand, we may find ourselves waiting a long time for tows.
> The last 1800' tow I bought from a commercial operator cost $55 which
> is absolutely reducing flying.
>
> Moving training to winches makes sense especially since the ASK-21 is
> arguably the worlds best winch glider. *(The 2-33 is arguably the
> worst.)

I agree, but by "first choice" meant within the current ecosystem.
Going to self launch motorgliders for training to me is going the
reverse direction than needed. Not that I don't think a newish
training fleet is important - I absolutely believe (and have seen
first hand) people with alternate things bidding for their time, and
with money in their pocket, are turned off but older training gliders.
I suspect soaring in the USA needs to make a larger systemic move
towards winch launching to lower costs and I'm not sure how that
happens. The largest issue I see is suitability of launch sites and
that often correlates with ownership or exclusive access to suitably
sized areas of land close to population centers. Several of my
favorite glider locations you also would not get far XC on winch
launches, coastal effects and valley inversions often dictate long
tows, so they are just sited poorly for winch use even if it was
otherwise possible.

While there are some concerns about towplane supply you should be able
to buy a quite serviceable starting at ~2x the price of a full rebuild
on a modern motorglider engine :-)


Darryl

[Berry[_2_]]

How are the Scheibe touring motorgliders as basic trainers (not the ones
with the smaller engines)? Back around 2000, when the dollar was counted
as real money, I seriously considered buying an SF-25 out of Europe.
They were many being sold dirt cheap. Of course, they pretty much all
needed recovering and/or engine rebuilds.

[Mike Schumann]

On 11/7/2010 2:15 PM, bildan wrote:
> On Nov 7, 10:42 am, John >
> wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 10:13 am, > wrote:
>>
>>>> Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
>>>> seem valid to me, but that's just me.
>>> This discussion should be about the thousands, perhaps tens of
>>> thousands, who didn't become glider pilots because they were put off
>>> by unattractive gliders, trashy operations etc...
>>
>>> Yesterday I gave 6 young people their first rides in an ASK-21 - they
>>> all wanted more. However, at lunch break, I couldn't help noticing
>>> the picnic table was 6 feet from an overflowing garbage can. We can
>>> do better.
>>
>> There is a tendency around soaring to mistake what we want, and what
>> we think people should want, with what they actually do want.
>> The world has changed. People have more money, less time, and higher
>> expectations. And many more choices. We can tell them they should want
>> something different, but they vote with their feet.
>>
>> The real question should be, what about self launch. My ideal trainer
>> is the ASK21 with motor. It's much more economical on time, the thing
>> we are all short of. Alas our airport is too short.
>>
>> John Cochrane
>
> Agreed, John.
>
> Aero tow corresponds to skiing's rope tow - it's slow and requires
> skill. Self launch corresponds to helicopter skiing - fast, exclusive
> and expensive. For those of us with less money, more time and room,
> there's winch launch which might be said as corresponding to a chair
> lift.
>
> To this I would add instructor supervised simulator training. This is
> a proven adjunct to pilot training which can be done anywhere, anytime
> with no weather or equipment restrictions. With the loss of 50% of
> our training fleet due to the L-13 grounding, I'd think this would be
> an attractive option for a lot of people. With a data projector
> (beamer) it lends itself to classroom sessions with a number of
> student pilots in attendance. The use of simulators can
> significantly reduce the demands on scarce training gliders.
>
> Bill Daniels

If you look at a Motorglider like the Phoenix, you can also keep it in a
regular T-Hanger at your local urban airport. Now you don't have to
drive 45 miles to get to a glider port. That's another huge plus for
both established glider pilots as well as new prospects.

--
Mike Schumann

[Frank Whiteley]

>
> Now I'm sure there will be some folks out there that we'll hear from
> here that are doing instruction in an ASK-21Mi or similar today, I
> could see it might sense more for very small clubs with memberships
> with high equity ownership and high amounts of supervision, especially
> if members want to move up to other motorgliders but in general I
> think a bad idea.
>
> Darryl

Things may have changed, but there was once a group in Washington
state that was looking to form a club around a G-103 III SL. At that
time, SSA Plan would not insure for first solo in a self-launcher.
Could be related only to retracts.

FWIW, we did 20 winch launches yesterday. 75F and severe clear with
unlimited viz as we could see Pikes Peak from Owl Canyon glider port,
138 miles as the crow flies.

Frank Whiteley

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 11/7/2010 2:03 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On 11/7/2010 2:15 PM, bildan wrote:
>
> If you look at a Motorglider like the Phoenix, you can also keep it in
> a regular T-Hanger at your local urban airport. Now you don't have to
> drive 45 miles to get to a glider port. That's another huge plus for
> both established glider pilots as well as new prospects.

I'm skeptical that this kind of aircraft, as lovely as it is, would
appeal to glider pilots. It seems like too much airplane and not enough
glider, both in performance and the "feel" of it when you are sitting
inside it. And I wonder how well it would work for training, since it is
so different from the other common trainers, and so very different from
the single seat gliders we'd expect the student to move into. Has anyone
used a Phoenix or similar as Mike suggests?

Perhaps the Taurus would be better choice for *glider* pilots. It's wing
is 15 meters, but the panels are light enough, they could be removed and
stored beside the fuselage in stands in a hangar, taking less space than
the Phoenix. I think the two-wheel main gear would make this practical,
but don't know anyone that does this.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[Darryl Ramm]

On Nov 7, 2:02*pm, Berry > wrote:
> How are the Scheibe touring motorgliders as basic trainers (not the ones
> with the smaller engines)? Back around 2000, when the dollar was counted
> as real money, I seriously considered buying an SF-25 out of Europe.
> They were many being sold dirt cheap. Of course, they pretty much all
> needed recovering and/or engine rebuilds.

Why would you want to do this? Besides dirt cheap....

They are an old design, and probalby do not look modern top many
people so does not address that concern/issue.

Who mantains the glider? The engine? The prop? And where are they
located?

The fuselage is tubular steel and some wood and fiberglass
construction right? (I'm not sure about the wings), for a training
glider that is going to be bumped around I'd much take a solid
composite glider with well know/USA avaialable repairability like the
ASK-21.

Have we learn about risks with older gliders like the L-13 yet?

Do you really want to put high hours on the engine. What is the cost/
supply of new/replacement engines?

For the tail dagger models expect to be pulling it out of the weeds
next to the runway when students have problems. And maybe paying high $
$$ engine/prop repairs not just fixing fiberglass skuffs. I know some
have tricycle U/C, I'm not sure what the typical configuration is.

I'd argue at ~22:1 (p to 25:1?) it may be a lot of things, but not a
(modern) glider. Transition to high performance glass may be as much
as issue as from older conventional gliders. Going XC is going to be
problematic and less likely to be instantly addictive in the way it
can in a Duo Discuss class two seater.

I'd hate to see people trying to teach XC soaring in 22-25:1
motorglider. The risk is the engine will be being restarted all the
time. The last thing I think new XC pilots ought to see.

Is it type certificated ? Some are I think, but I am not sure which
ones.

Again, if you want one for your own use knock yourself out. It could
be a fun and affordable tourer for the right owner. But as a basic
trainer, yuk...

Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Nov 7, 2:03*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 11/7/2010 2:15 PM, bildan wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 7, 10:42 am, John >
> > wrote:
> >> On Nov 7, 10:13 am, > *wrote:
>
> >>>> Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
> >>>> seem valid to me, but that's just me.
> >>> This discussion should be about the thousands, perhaps tens of
> >>> thousands, who didn't become glider pilots because they were put off
> >>> by unattractive gliders, trashy operations etc...
>
> >>> Yesterday I gave 6 young people their first rides in an ASK-21 - they
> >>> all wanted more. *However, at lunch break, I couldn't help noticing
> >>> the picnic table was 6 feet from an overflowing garbage can. *We can
> >>> do better.
>
> >> There is a tendency around soaring to mistake what we want, and what
> >> we think people should want, with what they actually do want.
> >> The world has changed. People have more money, less time, and higher
> >> expectations. And many more choices. We can tell them they should want
> >> something different, but they vote with their feet.
>
> >> The real question should be, what about self launch. My ideal trainer
> >> is the ASK21 with motor. It's much more economical on time, the thing
> >> we are all short of. Alas our airport is too short.
>
> >> John Cochrane
>
> > Agreed, John.
>
> > Aero tow corresponds to skiing's rope tow - it's slow and requires
> > skill. *Self launch corresponds to helicopter skiing - fast, exclusive
> > and expensive. *For those of us with less money, more time and room,
> > there's winch launch which might be said as corresponding to a chair
> > lift.
>
> > To this I would add instructor supervised simulator training. *This is
> > a proven adjunct to pilot training which can be done anywhere, anytime
> > with no weather or equipment restrictions. *With the loss of 50% of
> > our training fleet due to the L-13 grounding, I'd think this would be
> > an attractive option for a lot of people. *With a data projector
> > (beamer) it lends itself to classroom sessions with a number of
> > student pilots in attendance. * The use of simulators can
> > significantly reduce the demands on scarce training gliders.
>
> > Bill Daniels
>
> If you look at a Motorglider like the Phoenix, you can also keep it in a
> regular T-Hanger at your local urban airport. *Now you don't have to
> drive 45 miles to get to a glider port. *That's another huge plus for
> both established glider pilots as well as new prospects.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Are you talking abut the Phoenix as a potential private owner or for
instruction? (which was the context here?).

Its a tail-dragger tourer. I'm not sure about the insurance issues
there, while possible (but expensive?) I've seen issues with owners of
their own type-certificated power tail daggers getting insurance for
receiving instruction in their own aircraft even when coupled with
high time tail-dragger instructors.

When will it be type certificated in the USA? As an LSA you are able
to do exactly what instruction today...?

You can keep training gliders like a Duo Discus in its box and rig it
daily if needed. I know operation that do that. And I know lots of
folks, including me, that rig without problems at public airports. So
while I'm not disagreeing on the potential for storage in a hangar as
begin a convenience for an owner I'm just not sure it removes a
significant barrier to providing glider training in new places. The
ability to more easily taxi a touring motor-glider especial around
runway and taxiway lights etc. might be a more significant advantage
for operating out of GA airports. Hard to guess a general statement
there.

Darryl

[bildan]

On Nov 7, 3:29*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> > Now I'm sure there will be some folks out there that we'll hear from
> > here that are doing instruction in an ASK-21Mi or similar today, I
> > could see it might sense more for very small clubs with memberships
> > with high equity ownership and high amounts of supervision, especially
> > if members want to move up to other motorgliders but in general I
> > think a bad idea.
>
> > Darryl
>
> Things may have changed, but there was once a group in Washington
> state that was looking to form a club around a G-103 III SL. *At that
> time, SSA Plan would not insure for first solo in a self-launcher.
> Could be related only to retracts.
>
> FWIW, we did 20 winch launches yesterday. *75F and severe clear with
> unlimited viz as we could see Pikes Peak from Owl Canyon glider port,
> 138 miles as the crow flies.
>
> Frank Whiteley

An owner of a G-103 Twin III SL in Boulder gave up due to the
extremely poor climb performance and sold the glider to a group
operating at sea level.

As attractive as the idea is, AFAIK, no suitable training motorglider
exists with the ruggedness and low cost maintainability required.

[Scott Lamont]

On Nov 7, 2:36*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>
> Why don't you fly the Blaniks in the Winter?
>

Snowbanks, especially on the taxiway and around the tie downs. The
2-33 wing goes over them, and the 1-26 fits in between them.

-s-

[toad]

On Nov 7, 8:32*am, Burt Compton - Marfa > wrote:

> Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
> seem valid to me, but that's just me.
> I don't care to argue about it. Nobody is wrong. *If you can afford to
> buy a nice lookin' glider for your club, then buy it for them.

I think that it is certainly true that there are some number of people
that would start and continue soaring even with the most outdated
equipment, but there would be more people if the equipment and
operation were more modern and more exciting.

The question is how large is the difference, and would it pay for the
additional cost.

Todd Smith
3S

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 11/7/2010 4:43 PM, Scott Lamont wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2:36 pm, Eric > wrote:
>
>>
>> Why don't you fly the Blaniks in the Winter?
>>
>>
> Snowbanks, especially on the taxiway and around the tie downs. The
> 2-33 wing goes over them, and the 1-26 fits in between them.
>
>
SNOW? I'd probably retire for the winter with the Blaniks :-)

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)

[Mike Schumann]

On 11/7/2010 6:08 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2:03 pm, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 11/7/2010 2:15 PM, bildan wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 7, 10:42 am, John >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 7, 10:13 am, > wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
>>>>>> seem valid to me, but that's just me.
>>>>> This discussion should be about the thousands, perhaps tens of
>>>>> thousands, who didn't become glider pilots because they were put off
>>>>> by unattractive gliders, trashy operations etc...
>>
>>>>> Yesterday I gave 6 young people their first rides in an ASK-21 - they
>>>>> all wanted more. However, at lunch break, I couldn't help noticing
>>>>> the picnic table was 6 feet from an overflowing garbage can. We can
>>>>> do better.
>>
>>>> There is a tendency around soaring to mistake what we want, and what
>>>> we think people should want, with what they actually do want.
>>>> The world has changed. People have more money, less time, and higher
>>>> expectations. And many more choices. We can tell them they should want
>>>> something different, but they vote with their feet.
>>
>>>> The real question should be, what about self launch. My ideal trainer
>>>> is the ASK21 with motor. It's much more economical on time, the thing
>>>> we are all short of. Alas our airport is too short.
>>
>>>> John Cochrane
>>
>>> Agreed, John.
>>
>>> Aero tow corresponds to skiing's rope tow - it's slow and requires
>>> skill. Self launch corresponds to helicopter skiing - fast, exclusive
>>> and expensive. For those of us with less money, more time and room,
>>> there's winch launch which might be said as corresponding to a chair
>>> lift.
>>
>>> To this I would add instructor supervised simulator training. This is
>>> a proven adjunct to pilot training which can be done anywhere, anytime
>>> with no weather or equipment restrictions. With the loss of 50% of
>>> our training fleet due to the L-13 grounding, I'd think this would be
>>> an attractive option for a lot of people. With a data projector
>>> (beamer) it lends itself to classroom sessions with a number of
>>> student pilots in attendance. The use of simulators can
>>> significantly reduce the demands on scarce training gliders.
>>
>>> Bill Daniels
>>
>> If you look at a Motorglider like the Phoenix, you can also keep it in a
>> regular T-Hanger at your local urban airport. Now you don't have to
>> drive 45 miles to get to a glider port. That's another huge plus for
>> both established glider pilots as well as new prospects.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> Are you talking abut the Phoenix as a potential private owner or for
> instruction? (which was the context here?).
>
> Its a tail-dragger tourer. I'm not sure about the insurance issues
> there, while possible (but expensive?) I've seen issues with owners of
> their own type-certificated power tail daggers getting insurance for
> receiving instruction in their own aircraft even when coupled with
> high time tail-dragger instructors.
>
> When will it be type certificated in the USA? As an LSA you are able
> to do exactly what instruction today...?
>
> You can keep training gliders like a Duo Discus in its box and rig it
> daily if needed. I know operation that do that. And I know lots of
> folks, including me, that rig without problems at public airports. So
> while I'm not disagreeing on the potential for storage in a hangar as
> begin a convenience for an owner I'm just not sure it removes a
> significant barrier to providing glider training in new places. The
> ability to more easily taxi a touring motor-glider especial around
> runway and taxiway lights etc. might be a more significant advantage
> for operating out of GA airports. Hard to guess a general statement
> there.
>
> Darryl

I visited the Phoenix factory about a month or so ago in the Czech
Republic. A tricycle gear version of the Phoenix is a distinct
possibility if there is demand for it.

The Phoenix Motorglider is, or will be, LSA certified in the US. I'm
not an expert on the LSA rules, but my understanding is that flying an
LSA plane gives you the ability to get a Sport License, with less effort
than a regular license. However, I don't believe that there is any
reason that you can't get a regular glider license in an LSA certified
motorglider (or glider), if you are getting instruction from a regular
CFIG, meeting the normal requirements, including the regular written
test and FAA check ride.

Similarly, I believe that it is also possible to get a regular SEL
pilot's license in a regular LSA plane, like the Flight Design CT, or
the Cessna Skycatcher.

With the engine off, the Phoenix has an L/D of about 30:1. That's not
that different from a lot of older 2 seat training gliders. Granted,
the actual flight training will involve a lot of stuff that is more
similar to power flight than gliders (you won't learn aero-tow
procedures). For a lot of prospects, who aren't already pilots, that
may actually be perceived as a plus.

Conversely, with this kind of a motorglider, a student might actually
get a lot more cross-country training than what is currently provided by
many clubs, who discourage or prohibit the use of conventional club
gliders for cross country flights, due to a lack of trailers, and/or
concerns about logistical hassles with land-outs.

--
Mike Schumann

[Jim Logajan]

RN > wrote:
> The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at
> alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we
> will need.
>
> We would be very interested in other club's experience with other
> trainers, and what you are using and planning to use in the future.
>
> Our evaluation parameters include high useful load for heavy students
> and instructors, ease and availability of parts for maintenance and
> repair, durability for student solo operations, and up front cost .

Sonex Xenos perhaps? I have no experience with it and am not sure what the
general consensus is (I doubt there is much informed opinion on them since
not too many have been built, so few would have first-hand experience; but
unless I am missing something their performance seems more than adequate
for training purposes.)

Upfront new: ~US$34,000 + ~1200 club man-hours to build.
Side-by-side seating: good for training?
Motorglider: Dispense with towplane costs.
Experimental: Lower part and labor costs.
Sonex provides directions on how to get it registered with the FAA as a
glider.

http://www.sonexaircraft.com/images/products/xenos/PolarComparison.jpg

[Darryl Ramm]

On Nov 7, 11:02*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> RN > wrote:
> > The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at
> > alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we
> > will need.
>
> > We would be very interested in other club's experience with other
> > trainers, and what you are using and planning to use in the future.
>
> > Our evaluation parameters include high useful load for heavy students
> > and instructors, ease and availability of parts for maintenance and
> > repair, *durability for student solo operations, and up front cost .
>
> Sonex Xenos perhaps? I have no experience with it and am not sure what the
> general consensus is (I doubt there is much informed opinion on them since
> not too many have been built, so few would have first-hand experience; but
> unless I am missing something their performance seems more than adequate
> for training purposes.)
>
> Upfront new: ~US$34,000 + ~1200 club man-hours to build.
> Side-by-side seating: good for training?
> Motorglider: Dispense with towplane costs.
> Experimental: Lower part and labor costs.
> Sonex provides directions on how to get it registered with the FAA as a
> glider.
>
> http://www.sonexaircraft.com/images/products/xenos/PolarComparison.jpg

With a motorglider you do not "dispense with towplane costs" you
"replace towplane costs with motorglider costs" (and quite possibly
many more issues).

I would be surprised if a 24:1 (i.e. non-glider), homebuilt,
lightweight aluminum glider in a tail dragger configuration is meet
many of the practical needs of most glider clubs. I wonder what
getting insurance coverage for instruction on that would take.

The question was to replace L-13 Blaniks and looking for practical
experience. Is there anybody in the USA using any motorglider for
primary training? Can they share cost and operational experiences? How
many students per year go through to complete their licenses?

---

Wait, I know how about a ASK-21 and a towplane (or winch).

Darryl

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 13:32 07 November 2010, Burt Compton - Marfa wrote:
>On Nov 7, 5:52=A0am, Jim Beckman wrote:
>
>Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
>seem valid to me, but that's just me.

Yes. As somebody else mentioned, it exhibits a serious shallowness on the
part of the person who rejects the experience. Maybe it really has to do
with current youth expecting instant gratification in all things.

Really, the experience is the capability of the aircraft. The ability to
use the energy in the atmosphere, to climb, to stay aloft, and to cover
the ground. But if appearance is all you care about, then the 2-33 just
isn't going to ring your bell.

>P.S. By the way, I'd love to find a really nice Schweizer 2-22 -- now
>THAT is a cool lookin' glider! A Grunau Baby would be amazing to own!
>Talk about "SOUL" -- those old, ugly gliders (and for that matter the
>older gals) have it!

I really wish I could get a chance to fly a Schweizer 1-19. I know
there's one around here, but I don't think it's been flyable for twenty
years or so. And for a real blast, try a 1-26 with the sport canopy
installed.

http://www.126association.org/graphics/scott1-26solo3.jpg

Doesn't do much for performance, but the Fun Factor is at least doubled.

Jim Beckman

[Tony[_5_]]

On Nov 8, 5:17*am, Jim Beckman > wrote:
> At 13:32 07 November 2010, Burt Compton - Marfa wrote:
>
> >On Nov 7, 5:52=A0am, Jim Beckman *wrote:
>
> >Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
> >seem valid to me, but that's just me.
>
> Yes. *As somebody else mentioned, it exhibits a serious shallowness on the
> part of the person who rejects the experience. *Maybe it really has to do
> with current youth expecting instant gratification in all things.
>
> Really, the experience is the capability of the aircraft. *The ability to
> use the energy in the atmosphere, to climb, to stay aloft, and to cover
> the ground. *But if appearance is all you care about, then the 2-33 just
> isn't going to ring your bell.
>
> >P.S. *By the way, I'd love to find a really nice Schweizer 2-22 -- now
> >THAT is a cool lookin' glider! *A Grunau Baby would be amazing to own!
> >Talk about "SOUL" -- *those old, ugly gliders (and for that matter the
> >older gals) have it!
>
> I really wish I could get a chance to fly a Schweizer 1-19. *I know
> there's one around here, but I don't think it's been flyable for twenty
> years or so. *And for a real blast, try a 1-26 with the sport canopy
> installed.
>
> http://www.126association.org/graphics/scott1-26solo3.jpg
>
> Doesn't do much for performance, but the Fun Factor is at least doubled.
>
> Jim Beckman

I'm pretty sure there is no or very little performance hit for flying
the 1-26 open cockpit. My old club had one, it was a blast but it got
cold at cloudbase.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Nov 8, 12:30*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Nov 7, 11:02*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
>
>
> > RN > wrote:
> > > The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at
> > > alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we
> > > will need.
>
> > > We would be very interested in other club's experience with other
> > > trainers, and what you are using and planning to use in the future.
>
> > > Our evaluation parameters include high useful load for heavy students
> > > and instructors, ease and availability of parts for maintenance and
> > > repair, *durability for student solo operations, and up front cost ..
>
> > Sonex Xenos perhaps? I have no experience with it and am not sure what the
> > general consensus is (I doubt there is much informed opinion on them since
> > not too many have been built, so few would have first-hand experience; but
> > unless I am missing something their performance seems more than adequate
> > for training purposes.)
>
> > Upfront new: ~US$34,000 + ~1200 club man-hours to build.
> > Side-by-side seating: good for training?
> > Motorglider: Dispense with towplane costs.
> > Experimental: Lower part and labor costs.
> > Sonex provides directions on how to get it registered with the FAA as a
> > glider.
>
> >http://www.sonexaircraft.com/images/products/xenos/PolarComparison.jpg
>
> With a motorglider you do not "dispense with towplane costs" you
> "replace towplane costs with motorglider costs" (and quite possibly
> many more issues).
>
> I would be surprised if a 24:1 (i.e. non-glider), homebuilt,
> lightweight aluminum glider in a tail dragger configuration is meet
> many of the practical needs of most glider clubs. I wonder what
> getting insurance coverage for instruction on that would take.
>
> The question was to replace L-13 Blaniks and looking for practical
> experience. Is there anybody in the USA using any motorglider for
> primary training? Can they share cost and operational experiences? How
> many students per year go through to complete their licenses?
>
> ---
>
> Wait, I know how about a ASK-21 and a towplane (or winch).
>
> Darryl

Here are the FAA numbers of all glider ratings, abinitio and add-ons

http://www.soaringchapters.org/world_report/

[bildan]

On Nov 8, 8:09*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:


>
> Here are the FAA numbers of all glider ratings, abinitio and add-ons
>
> http://www.soaringchapters.org/world_report/

People need to just look at that graph for while and then ask
themselves if continuing to do what we've been doing is the right
course. There's a term for doing the same thing over and over while
expecting a different result.

Blaming the customer for not liking what we're selling isn't a
solution. But it's heard a lot - in bankruptcy court.

[sisu1a]

> >Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
> >seem valid to me, but that's just me.
>
> Yes. *As somebody else mentioned, it exhibits a serious shallowness on the
> part of the person who rejects the experience. *Maybe it really has to do
> with current youth expecting instant gratification in all things.
>

The guy from the garage sale I was talking about was like 60 years
old... so your 'it's just the youth of today' argument is not actually
relevant to the situation you're commenting on. The story he relayed
to me was unsolicited and unfiltered, so it provides an honest and I
feel valuable insight into what wasn't a game-stopping problem for
most glider dorks on ras (myself included), but is a real issue
nonetheless.

If this were a trivial issue, the advertising industry would not be a
multi-trillion dollar juggernaut. In a world full of enticing choices,
the CEO of XXX corporation doesn't expect people to simply buy their
products 'just because', no matter how useful or wonderful the
products may be. Honest effort is put into trying to figure out how to
best supplant their idea/image, to most widely sell their wares most
effectively with particular emphasis on generating new users (ensuring
survival), and their advertising dept most likely takes the psychology
of aesthetics and marketing pretty seriously.

And what of it if today's youth want 'instant gratification'? Should
that not then be the goal for soaring operations to provide? If that
is our reality, than we either need to adapt to it or fade into
irrelevance.


-Paul

[Ian Cant]

Paul Hanson wrote:
>
>And what of it if today's youth want 'instant gratification'? Should
>that not then be the goal for soaring operations to provide? If that
>is our reality, than we either need to adapt to it or fade into
>irrelevance.
>
>-Paul
>

That is a very perceptive comment. If instant gratification is the
primary demand from our marketplace, and our primary goal is to expand our
customer base, then we should aim for that instant gratification. A single
long introductrory flight in the highest-performance self-launcher to be
found; with the promise of solo in a couple of days, private license
within a week ?

But perhaps the soul of our sport is that it does NOT provide that kind of
instant gratification, that instead it rewards prolonged effort. Then we
restrict our market to that minority of people with similar tastes. We
will not grow so big or so fast. And perhaps people like that are happy
to start out at the bottom of the ladder, learn all the fundamental skills
and work their way to the top. Blaniks or Schweizers as workhorses, with
just a tantalizing glimpse of slippery glass to keep the long-term goal in
mind, might then be appropriate.

The glider does not matter so much compared to the inherent motivation of
the pilot and the skill and dedication of the instructor.

What we often do lose sight of is the need to offer a ladder with all the
rungs in place. There must be an affordable - that means cheap - entry
rung, intermediate rungs to gradually increase capabilities, and top rungs
for the most skilled and competitive. That suggests a mixed fleet.
Perhaps a 2-33 or Blanik, a 1-26 or similar to enjoy solo flight, an
ASK-21 to transition to glass, a Cirrus or Libelle to taste peformance and
a Duo or DG-1000 [possibly self-launching] before the new pilot needs to
buy his personal sailplane of choice.

Just a thought.

Ian

[Ian Cant]

Paul Hanson wrote:
>
>And what of it if today's youth want 'instant gratification'? Should
>that not then be the goal for soaring operations to provide? If that
>is our reality, than we either need to adapt to it or fade into
>irrelevance.
>
>-Paul
>

That is a very perceptive comment. If instant gratification is the
primary demand from our marketplace, and our primary goal is to expand our
customer base, then we should aim for that instant gratification. A single
long introductrory flight in the highest-performance self-launcher to be
found; with the promise of solo in a couple of days, private license
within a week ?

But perhaps the soul of our sport is that it does NOT provide that kind of
instant gratification, that instead it rewards prolonged effort. Then we
restrict our market to that minority of people with similar tastes. We
will not grow so big or so fast. And perhaps people like that are happy
to start out at the bottom of the ladder, learn all the fundamental skills
and work their way to the top. Blaniks or Schweizers as workhorses, with
just a tantalizing glimpse of slippery glass to keep the long-term goal in
mind, might then be appropriate.

The glider does not matter so much compared to the inherent motivation of
the pilot and the skill and dedication of the instructor.

What we often do lose sight of is the need to offer a ladder with all the
rungs in place. There must be an affordable - that means cheap - entry
rung, intermediate rungs to gradually increase capabilities, and top rungs
for the most skilled and competitive. That suggests a mixed fleet.
Perhaps a 2-33 or Blanik, a 1-26 or similar to enjoy solo flight, an
ASK-21 to transition to glass, a Cirrus or Libelle to taste peformance and
a Duo or DG-1000 [possibly self-launching] before the new pilot needs to
buy his personal sailplane of choice.

Just a thought.

Ian

[Ian Cant]

Paul Hanson wrote:
>
>And what of it if today's youth want 'instant gratification'? Should
>that not then be the goal for soaring operations to provide? If that
>is our reality, than we either need to adapt to it or fade into
>irrelevance.
>
>-Paul
>

That is a very perceptive comment. If instant gratification is the
primary demand from our marketplace, and our primary goal is to expand our
customer base, then we should aim for that instant gratification. A single
long introductrory flight in the highest-performance self-launcher to be
found; with the promise of solo in a couple of days, private license
within a week ?

But perhaps the soul of our sport is that it does NOT provide that kind of
instant gratification, that instead it rewards prolonged effort. Then we
restrict our market to that minority of people with similar tastes. We
will not grow so big or so fast. And perhaps people like that are happy
to start out at the bottom of the ladder, learn all the fundamental skills
and work their way to the top. Blaniks or Schweizers as workhorses, with
just a tantalizing glimpse of slippery glass to keep the long-term goal in
mind, might then be appropriate.

The glider does not matter so much compared to the inherent motivation of
the pilot and the skill and dedication of the instructor.

What we often do lose sight of is the need to offer a ladder with all the
rungs in place. There must be an affordable - that means cheap - entry
rung, intermediate rungs to gradually increase capabilities, and top rungs
for the most skilled and competitive. That suggests a mixed fleet.
Perhaps a 2-33 or Blanik, a 1-26 or similar to enjoy solo flight, an
ASK-21 to transition to glass, a Cirrus or Libelle to taste peformance and
a Duo or DG-1000 [possibly self-launching] before the new pilot needs to
buy his personal sailplane of choice.

Just a thought.

Ian

[Greg Arnold[_2_]]

On 11/8/2010 7:40 AM, sisu1a wrote:

> And what of it if today's youth want 'instant gratification'? Should
> that not then be the goal for soaring operations to provide? If that
> is our reality, than we either need to adapt to it or fade into
> irrelevance.
>
>
> -Paul


Yes, we must not fall into the trap of thinking "our product is fine,
the problem is with the people who are not buying it."

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 16:48:12 +0000, Ian Cant wrote:

> Paul Hanson wrote:
>>
>>And what of it if today's youth want 'instant gratification'? Should
>>that not then be the goal for soaring operations to provide? If that is
>>our reality, than we either need to adapt to it or fade into
>>irrelevance.
>>
>>-Paul
>>
>>
> That is a very perceptive comment. If instant gratification is the
> primary demand from our marketplace, and our primary goal is to expand
> our customer base, then we should aim for that instant gratification. A
> single long introductrory flight in the highest-performance
> self-launcher to be found; with the promise of solo in a couple of days,
> private license within a week ?
>
> But perhaps the soul of our sport is that it does NOT provide that kind
> of instant gratification, that instead it rewards prolonged effort.
>
I think you'll find that there's very little, apart from theme-park
rides, computer games, watching movies and reading that provide instant
gratification.

Everything else, from every day activities like riding a bike or driving
a car right the way through to complex and technical sports involves
time, a learning curve and an input of time and effort from the
participant.


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

[bildan]

On Nov 8, 9:48*am, Ian Cant >
wrote:
> Paul Hanson wrote:
>
> >And what of it if today's youth want 'instant gratification'? Should
> >that not then be the goal for soaring operations to provide? If that
> >is our reality, than we either need to adapt to it or fade into
> >irrelevance.
>
> >-Paul
>
> That is a very perceptive comment. *If instant gratification is the
> primary demand from our marketplace, and our primary goal is to expand our
> customer base, then we should aim for that instant gratification. *A single
> long introductrory flight in the highest-performance self-launcher to be
> found; with the promise of solo in a couple of days, private license
> within a week ?
>
> But perhaps the soul of our sport is that it does NOT provide that kind of
> instant gratification, that instead it rewards prolonged effort. *Then we
> restrict our market to that minority of people with similar tastes. *We
> will not grow so big or so fast. *And perhaps people like that are happy
> to start out at the bottom of the ladder, learn all the fundamental skills
> and work their way to the top. *Blaniks or Schweizers as workhorses, with
> just a tantalizing glimpse of slippery glass to keep the long-term goal in
> mind, might then be appropriate.
>
> The glider does not matter so much compared to the inherent motivation of
> the pilot and the skill and dedication of the instructor.
>
> What we often do lose sight of is the need to offer a ladder with all the
> rungs in place. *There must be an affordable - that means cheap - entry
> rung, intermediate rungs to gradually increase capabilities, and top rungs
> for the most skilled and competitive. *That suggests a mixed fleet.
> Perhaps a 2-33 or Blanik, a 1-26 or similar to enjoy solo flight, an
> ASK-21 to transition to glass, a Cirrus or Libelle to taste peformance and
> a Duo or DG-1000 [possibly self-launching] before the new pilot needs to
> buy his personal sailplane of choice.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Ian

Ian, I'd buy your ladder if the ASK-21 was the bottom rung. The
ASK-21 is actually cheaper in constant dollars than the 2-33 when it
was new.

Don't confuse "cheap" with "cheapest old crap available" If we had
always insisted on "cheapest available" as the first rung, we'd still
be training in primary gliders.

Your ladder has been in effect for a long time now. You just have to
look Frank's FAA chart to see how it's working out.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Nov 8, 3:18*pm, toad > wrote:
> I think that it is certainly true that there are some number of people
> that would start and continue soaring even with the most outdated
> equipment, but there would be more people if the equipment and
> operation were more modern and more exciting.
>
> The question is how large is the difference, and would it pay for the
> additional cost.

It doesn't need to be very new.

My experience is that if you sit a brand new DG1000 (in 18m config, so
no swoopy tips and winglets) next to a well-maintained late 70's Twin
Astir or Janus then most visitors to the airfield can't distinguish
between them.

[noel.wade]

Its been said by myself and a couple of others in this thread, but let
me try to rephrase it:

Those of you saying "well it worked for me" are missing the point.
YOU are on the inside, looking out. YOU are one of the rare people
who overcame the obstacles and pitfalls in the current system of
enciting and training new glider pilots. You are NOT one of the
millions of people who have no idea what a sailplane is, or how it
works, or haven't ever given much thought to aviation.

If we're only attracting people who are already interested in flying
gliders, then we're not doing any real recruiting at all; and we
certainly will never grow the sport.

--Noel

[Andy[_10_]]

On Nov 8, 7:09*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
> Here are the FAA numbers of all glider ratings, abinitio and add-ons
>
> http://www.soaringchapters.org/world_report/


Whatever we did in 1996, we should do it again. Can anyone explain the
spike upward in glider ratings?

9B

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 13:43 08 November 2010, Tony wrote:
>
>I'm pretty sure there is no or very little performance hit for flying
>the 1-26 open cockpit. My old club had one, it was a blast but it got
>cold at cloudbase.

At one of the 1-26 Championship contests within recent memory, there was
an effort to get as many competitors as possible flying with the Sport
Canopy. As I recall (I wasn't there, I've only been to two of the
Championships) there were six or seven 1-26s competing with open
cockpits.

Jim Beckman

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 21:24 08 November 2010, Andy wrote:
>
>Whatever we did in 1996, we should do it again. Can anyone explain the
>spike upward in glider ratings?

Doesn't this curve track the general state of the economy, to some
extent? Think back to the late 90s - the dot-com bubble hadn't burst
yet, and real estate values were still going only upwards, and would never
go in the other direction. People had money to spend on optional
activities.

Or maybe not.

Jim Beckman

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 15:40 08 November 2010, sisu1a wrote:
>
>And what of it if today's youth want 'instant gratification'? Should
>that not then be the goal for soaring operations to provide? If that
>is our reality, than we either need to adapt to it or fade into
>irrelevance.

Isn't that a fair working definition of a dilettante? Are those really
the people that we want to attract into our sport? On the other hand, it
is most certainly the folks that the commercial ride operations want to
attract.

I notice that when a 2-32 is available as a ride ship, it gets a lot of
use. And it's always sort of entertaining to see how they can pack two
folks into the back seat.

Jim Beckman

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 13:16:11 -0800, noel.wade wrote:

> Its been said by myself and a couple of others in this thread, but let
> me try to rephrase it:
>
> Those of you saying "well it worked for me" are missing the point. YOU
> are on the inside, looking out.
>
That's not what Bruce is saying. Look back at his comment. I agree with
him too: on Saturday we had a trail flighter and some starting student
pilots out and were using an ASK-21, a G.103 Acro II with out Puchacz
visible in the hangar. The visitors and students really didn't
distinguish between the three two-seaters, even one Polish guy who knows
his power planes well enough to know what a Wilga is.

I think Bruce is right: if a two-seater has a composite airframe, is
painted white, and is well-maintained even a Puchacz and an ASK-21 are
similar enough that that anybody who isn't 'one of us' won't make
distinctions between them.


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

[Kevin Christner]

> Whatever we did in 1996, we should do it again. Can anyone explain the
> spike upward in glider ratings?
>
> 9B

The years 1992-2000 saw a huge increase in discretionary spending by
the American population as the stock market soared. Soaring was a
beneficiary of this spending but certainly didn't do anything to
promote it.

2C

[bildan]

On Nov 8, 3:00*pm, Jim Beckman > wrote:
> At 15:40 08 November 2010, sisu1a wrote:
>
>
>
> >And what of it if today's youth want 'instant gratification'? Should
> >that not then be the goal for soaring operations to provide? If that
> >is our reality, than we either need to adapt to it or fade into
> >irrelevance.
>
> Isn't that a fair working definition of a dilettante? * Are those really
> the people that we want to attract into our sport? *On the other hand, it
> is most certainly the folks that the commercial ride operations want to
> attract.
>
> I notice that when a 2-32 is available as a ride ship, it gets a lot of
> use. *And it's always sort of entertaining to see how they can pack two
> folks into the back seat.
>
> Jim Beckman


As a former ride pilot, I can assure you "Those People" aren't
"dilettantes", they're just people - mostly very nice people, who
decided to give gliding a try. Judging them to be dilettantes is just
one of many examples of how we chase people away. Treating them
warmly is how we convert them - and we DO want to convert them.

A percentage of ride passengers do come back to learn to fly gliders -
a significantly larger percentage come back if their first ride was in
a decent glider and they were offered training in something better
than a 2-33. Many more say they would love to learn to fly gliders if
their personal and financial situation permitted and I believe them.

[Mike Schumann]

On 11/8/2010 11:48 AM, Ian Cant wrote:
> Paul Hanson wrote:
>>
>> And what of it if today's youth want 'instant gratification'? Should
>> that not then be the goal for soaring operations to provide? If that
>> is our reality, than we either need to adapt to it or fade into
>> irrelevance.
>>
>> -Paul
>>
>
> That is a very perceptive comment. If instant gratification is the
> primary demand from our marketplace, and our primary goal is to expand our
> customer base, then we should aim for that instant gratification. A single
> long introductrory flight in the highest-performance self-launcher to be
> found; with the promise of solo in a couple of days, private license
> within a week ?
>
> But perhaps the soul of our sport is that it does NOT provide that kind of
> instant gratification, that instead it rewards prolonged effort. Then we
> restrict our market to that minority of people with similar tastes. We
> will not grow so big or so fast. And perhaps people like that are happy
> to start out at the bottom of the ladder, learn all the fundamental skills
> and work their way to the top. Blaniks or Schweizers as workhorses, with
> just a tantalizing glimpse of slippery glass to keep the long-term goal in
> mind, might then be appropriate.
>
> The glider does not matter so much compared to the inherent motivation of
> the pilot and the skill and dedication of the instructor.
>
> What we often do lose sight of is the need to offer a ladder with all the
> rungs in place. There must be an affordable - that means cheap - entry
> rung, intermediate rungs to gradually increase capabilities, and top rungs
> for the most skilled and competitive. That suggests a mixed fleet.
> Perhaps a 2-33 or Blanik, a 1-26 or similar to enjoy solo flight, an
> ASK-21 to transition to glass, a Cirrus or Libelle to taste peformance and
> a Duo or DG-1000 [possibly self-launching] before the new pilot needs to
> buy his personal sailplane of choice.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>

1st impressions make a huge difference. When you are dealing with a new
person who is interested in the sport, you want to make sure that
his/her 1st glider experience is a positive one.

It's not just what kind of glider it is, but also what condition it is
in. A pristine L-13 can make a very good impression, matching a
mediocre K-21. The same goes for a museum quality 2-33. However, a
worn glider that sits outside just, doesn't do it for a lot of people,
including power pilots who are just putting their toes in the water.

--
Mike Schumann

[Mike Schumann]

On 11/8/2010 10:09 AM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> On Nov 8, 12:30 am, Darryl > wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 11:02 pm, Jim > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> > wrote:
>>>> The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at
>>>> alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we
>>>> will need.
>>
>>>> We would be very interested in other club's experience with other
>>>> trainers, and what you are using and planning to use in the future.
>>
>>>> Our evaluation parameters include high useful load for heavy students
>>>> and instructors, ease and availability of parts for maintenance and
>>>> repair, durability for student solo operations, and up front cost .
>>
>>> Sonex Xenos perhaps? I have no experience with it and am not sure what the
>>> general consensus is (I doubt there is much informed opinion on them since
>>> not too many have been built, so few would have first-hand experience; but
>>> unless I am missing something their performance seems more than adequate
>>> for training purposes.)
>>
>>> Upfront new: ~US$34,000 + ~1200 club man-hours to build.
>>> Side-by-side seating: good for training?
>>> Motorglider: Dispense with towplane costs.
>>> Experimental: Lower part and labor costs.
>>> Sonex provides directions on how to get it registered with the FAA as a
>>> glider.
>>
>>> http://www.sonexaircraft.com/images/products/xenos/PolarComparison.jpg
>>
>> With a motorglider you do not "dispense with towplane costs" you
>> "replace towplane costs with motorglider costs" (and quite possibly
>> many more issues).
>>
>> I would be surprised if a 24:1 (i.e. non-glider), homebuilt,
>> lightweight aluminum glider in a tail dragger configuration is meet
>> many of the practical needs of most glider clubs. I wonder what
>> getting insurance coverage for instruction on that would take.
>>
>> The question was to replace L-13 Blaniks and looking for practical
>> experience. Is there anybody in the USA using any motorglider for
>> primary training? Can they share cost and operational experiences? How
>> many students per year go through to complete their licenses?
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Wait, I know how about a ASK-21 and a towplane (or winch).
>>
>> Darryl
>
> Here are the FAA numbers of all glider ratings, abinitio and add-ons
>
> http://www.soaringchapters.org/world_report/

I am very surprised at the extremely low number of add-on glider
ratings. Can this be right? Last year, only 10 power pilots added on a
glider rating in the entire US?

If that's true, then we should be doing a serious marketing campaign
aimed at power pilots who have let their medicals lapse. That's the
really low hanging fruit.

--
Mike Schumann

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 11/8/2010 3:17 AM, Jim Beckman wrote:
> At 13:32 07 November 2010, Burt Compton - Marfa wrote:
>
>> On Nov 7, 5:52=A0am, Jim Beckman wrote:
>>
>> Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
>> seem valid to me, but that's just me.
>>
> Yes. As somebody else mentioned, it exhibits a serious shallowness on the
> part of the person who rejects the experience. Maybe it really has to do
> with current youth expecting instant gratification in all things.
>

On the other hand ... I remember how many pilots that were definitely
beyond the "shallow" stage that did not like the PW-5 (some ferociously
so) because of it's looks. I don't agree with them about the PW5, but
that's not important: what is important is *looks do matter* to some
people who will become glider pilots. And why shouldn't looks matter?
For many of us, soaring is a treat to the eyes, and a sleek glider with
bendy wings is one of those treats.

There are many reasons for getting into, and staying in, soaring, and
the way a glider looks seems just sensible as any other reason. An
operation that offers just a 2-33 or similar is going to have a smaller
group to draw from.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[Frank Whiteley]

On Nov 8, 2:24*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Nov 8, 7:09*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here are the FAA numbers of all glider ratings, abinitio and add-ons
>
> >http://www.soaringchapters.org/world_report/
>
> Whatever we did in 1996, we should do it again. Can anyone explain the
> spike upward in glider ratings?
>
> 9B

Also note the ratios of ab-initio to add-on ratings in that period and
now.

Perhaps the world wide web, increasing costs of flying power,
generation of WWII/post WWII pilots losing medicals, increase
disposable income, 125% loan to value home equity loans?

[Derek ruddock]

Funnily enough, my first trial flight was at Cambridge Club: I was
launched in a K13 and had a short thermalling flight, but never went
back because I was expecting a sleek fibreglass machine rather than
something that was older than I was (29 at the time).
I ended up joining London gliding club, whos had a fleet of 6 K21's,
and went solo in one of their K23's (a single seat version of a K21)

On Nov 6, 9:02*am, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:44:18 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
> > "noel.wade" > wrote:
> >> On Sep 15, 10:14*am, "Surfer!" > wrote:
>
> >>> But since the Schweizer seems to be the training ship of choice in
> >>> most U
> >> S
> >>> clubs that shouldn't be a surprise. *It's certainly not (IMHO) an
> >>> endorsement of them.
>
> >> I couldn't agree more! *As a "younger" glider pilot myself (29 when I
> >> started), let me make a few assertions:
>
> >> 1) Do you think you can get *ANY* young person interested in soaring if
> >> what they see is a 2-33? After playing any modern computer game? After
> >> watching movies like "The Fast and the Furious"? *The 2-33 looks like a
> >> dog and flies slowly.
>
> > I started lessons when I was 52. I didn't have a problem with the club's
> > 2-33 because it is possible I'm not a shallow youth anymore. ;-)
>
> I started learning when I was 54, and that was certainly thanks to a ride
> in an ASK-21. I'd had a couple of trial flights 8-10 years previously in
> an ASK-13, but though it was a nice experience it didn't inspire me to
> take up gliding. However, and I don't know why, that flight in an ASK-21
> in the fall of '99 at Front Royale set the hook and I joined Cambridge GC
> in the UK at the start of the 2000 season, picking them for no better
> reason than they were the only local club with a glass training fleet. As
> it happened I couldn't have chosen better given the club's strong xc
> culture. This became apparent at the 2001 Regionals when I got my first
> cross-country ride in the club's G103: I had a ring-side seat as my P1
> won the day on handicap.
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Frank Whiteley]

On Nov 8, 5:45*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 11/8/2010 10:09 AM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 8, 12:30 am, Darryl > *wrote:
> >> On Nov 7, 11:02 pm, Jim > *wrote:
>
> >>> > *wrote:
> >>>> The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at
> >>>> alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we
> >>>> will need.
>
> >>>> We would be very interested in other club's experience with other
> >>>> trainers, and what you are using and planning to use in the future.
>
> >>>> Our evaluation parameters include high useful load for heavy students
> >>>> and instructors, ease and availability of parts for maintenance and
> >>>> repair, *durability for student solo operations, and up front cost

[Mike Schumann]

On 11/8/2010 8:11 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 11/8/2010 3:17 AM, Jim Beckman wrote:
>> At 13:32 07 November 2010, Burt Compton - Marfa wrote:
>>> On Nov 7, 5:52=A0am, Jim Beckman wrote:
>>>
>>> Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
>>> seem valid to me, but that's just me.
>> Yes. As somebody else mentioned, it exhibits a serious shallowness on the
>> part of the person who rejects the experience. Maybe it really has to do
>> with current youth expecting instant gratification in all things.
>
> On the other hand ... I remember how many pilots that were definitely
> beyond the "shallow" stage that did not like the PW-5 (some ferociously
> so) because of it's looks. I don't agree with them about the PW5, but
> that's not important: what is important is *looks do matter* to some
> people who will become glider pilots. And why shouldn't looks matter?
> For many of us, soaring is a treat to the eyes, and a sleek glider with
> bendy wings is one of those treats.
>
> There are many reasons for getting into, and staying in, soaring, and
> the way a glider looks seems just sensible as any other reason. An
> operation that offers just a 2-33 or similar is going to have a smaller
> group to draw from.
>

You are absolutely right. Looks matter a LOT. Just look at Apple's
success.

--
Mike Schumann

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 23:29 08 November 2010, bildan wrote:
>
>As a former ride pilot, I can assure you "Those People" aren't
>"dilettantes", they're just people - mostly very nice people, who
>decided to give gliding a try. Judging them to be dilettantes is just
>one of many examples of how we chase people away.

I was referring specifically to potential rides who walk away from the
opportunity when they see that the vehicle is going to be something less
than what Thomas Crown (latest version) flew. Those folks, if not
dilettante, are something even denser.

Jim Beckman

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 00:32 09 November 2010, Mike Schumann wrote:
>
>1st impressions make a huge difference. When you are dealing with a new

>person who is interested in the sport, you want to make sure that
>his/her 1st glider experience is a positive one.
>
>It's not just what kind of glider it is, but also what condition it is
>in. A pristine L-13 can make a very good impression, matching a
>mediocre K-21. The same goes for a museum quality 2-33. However, a
>worn glider that sits outside just, doesn't do it for a lot of people,
>including power pilots who are just putting their toes in the water.

I would suggest that the attitude of the ride pilot is just as important,
if not more so, than pure appearances. And a ride pilot is obviously
going to treat a pilot passenger differently than a novice.

Not to mention the attitude of the other people assisting with the flight
or just hanging around the gliders. When I first starting taking lessons
to transition from power to gliders, the club on the field took absolutely
*no* interest in what I was doing, or explaining what the club had to
offer, or attempting to interest me in joining. I practically had to
force myself on them (damn glad I did it, too). We generally present an
unfortunate impression of aloofness and distraction. The gregarious,
outgoing, friendly glider folks are a valuable exception.

Jim Beckman

[bildan]

On Nov 9, 5:16*am, Jim Beckman > wrote:
> At 23:29 08 November 2010, bildan wrote:
>
>
>
> >As a former ride pilot, I can assure you "Those People" aren't
> >"dilettantes", they're just people - mostly very nice people, who
> >decided to give gliding a try. *Judging them to be dilettantes is just
> >one of many examples of how we chase people away. *
>
> I was referring specifically to potential rides who walk away from the
> opportunity when they see that the vehicle is going to be something less
> than what Thomas Crown (latest version) flew. *Those folks, if not
> dilettante, are something even denser.
>
> Jim Beckman

I would say 100% could tell the 2-32's were old and the Grob Twin III
was a much sexier glider. Grob rides were far more likely to generate
further interest. I would call them discriminating which is a
complement.

[bildan]

On Nov 9, 5:26*am, Jim Beckman > wrote:
> At 00:32 09 November 2010, Mike Schumann wrote:
>
>
>
> >1st impressions make a huge difference. *When you are dealing with a new
> >person who is interested in the sport, you want to make sure that
> >his/her 1st glider experience is a positive one.
>
> >It's not just what kind of glider it is, but also what condition it is
> >in. *A pristine L-13 can make a very good impression, matching a
> >mediocre K-21. *The same goes for a museum quality 2-33. *However, a
> >worn glider that sits outside just, doesn't do it for a lot of people,
> >including power pilots who are just putting their toes in the water.
>
> I would suggest that the attitude of the ride pilot is just as important,
> if not more so, than pure appearances. *And a ride pilot is obviously
> going to treat a pilot passenger differently than a novice.
>
> Not to mention the attitude of the other people assisting with the flight
> or just hanging around the gliders. *When I first starting taking lessons
> to transition from power to gliders, the club on the field took absolutely
> *no* interest in what I was doing, or explaining what the club had to
> offer, or attempting to interest me in joining. *I practically had to
> force myself on them (damn glad I did it, too). *We generally present an
> unfortunate impression of aloofness and distraction. *The gregarious,
> outgoing, friendly glider folks are a valuable exception.
>
> Jim Beckman

Ride pilots make a huge difference, but even they can't overcome a
trashy glider.

It's a real shame that few ride operations take the time and trouble
to tell their customers what soaring is really all about. In my case,
the owner just wanted to chase them off after they paid for the ride.

If they persisted, they got pitched a $7,000+ "training package" in a
2-33. Once they looked at the 2-33, that deal became a really hard
sell.

A few of them walked over to the club to find they could train in a
well maintained G-103 or DG 505 for a small fraction of the cost, then
passed the word around. The 2-33 deal became nearly impossible to
sell.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Jim Beckman > wrote:

> At 23:29 08 November 2010, bildan wrote:
> >
> >As a former ride pilot, I can assure you "Those People" aren't
> >"dilettantes", they're just people - mostly very nice people, who
> >decided to give gliding a try. Judging them to be dilettantes is just
> >one of many examples of how we chase people away.
>
> I was referring specifically to potential rides who walk away from the
> opportunity when they see that the vehicle is going to be something less
> than what Thomas Crown (latest version) flew. Those folks, if not
> dilettante, are something even denser.

I assume everyone posting to this thread with this attitude is flying a
1-26, a PW-5, or something similarly economical, right? I'm sure none of
you would be so shallow as to have spent a bunch of extra money on a
shiny glass slipper....

Appearances matter to almost everybody, to different degrees. This is
simply a fact of life that we have to deal with. If you don't want those
people, that's a perfectly valid desire, but it does mean greatly
limiting your pool. Having something shiny and modern to show off isn't
a fault, and the people it attracts can still be valuable members to
have.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Bob McKellar]

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
...
> On 11/8/2010 10:09 AM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>> On Nov 8, 12:30 am, Darryl > wrote:
>>> On Nov 7, 11:02 pm, Jim > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at
>>>>> alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we
>>>>> will need.
>>>
>>>>> We would be very interested in other club's experience with other
>>>>> trainers, and what you are using and planning to use in the future.
>>>
>>>>> Our evaluation parameters include high useful load for heavy students
>>>>> and instructors, ease and availability of parts for maintenance and
>>>>> repair, durability for student solo operations, and up front cost .
>>>
>>>> Sonex Xenos perhaps? I have no experience with it and am not sure what
>>>> the
>>>> general consensus is (I doubt there is much informed opinion on them
>>>> since
>>>> not too many have been built, so few would have first-hand experience;
>>>> but
>>>> unless I am missing something their performance seems more than
>>>> adequate
>>>> for training purposes.)
>>>
>>>> Upfront new: ~US$34,000 + ~1200 club man-hours to build.
>>>> Side-by-side seating: good for training?
>>>> Motorglider: Dispense with towplane costs.
>>>> Experimental: Lower part and labor costs.
>>>> Sonex provides directions on how to get it registered with the FAA as a
>>>> glider.
>>>
>>>> http://www.sonexaircraft.com/images/products/xenos/PolarComparison.jpg
>>>
>>> With a motorglider you do not "dispense with towplane costs" you
>>> "replace towplane costs with motorglider costs" (and quite possibly
>>> many more issues).
>>>
>>> I would be surprised if a 24:1 (i.e. non-glider), homebuilt,
>>> lightweight aluminum glider in a tail dragger configuration is meet
>>> many of the practical needs of most glider clubs. I wonder what
>>> getting insurance coverage for instruction on that would take.
>>>
>>> The question was to replace L-13 Blaniks and looking for practical
>>> experience. Is there anybody in the USA using any motorglider for
>>> primary training? Can they share cost and operational experiences? How
>>> many students per year go through to complete their licenses?
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Wait, I know how about a ASK-21 and a towplane (or winch).
>>>
>>> Darryl
>>
>> Here are the FAA numbers of all glider ratings, abinitio and add-ons
>>
>> http://www.soaringchapters.org/world_report/
>
> I am very surprised at the extremely low number of add-on glider ratings.
> Can this be right? Last year, only 10 power pilots added on a glider
> rating in the entire US?
>
> If that's true, then we should be doing a serious marketing campaign aimed
> at power pilots who have let their medicals lapse. That's the really low
> hanging fruit.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

I question those numbers as well. I got into gliders 2008 and have known of
at least 4 or 5 add-ons at my small club since, and we are not located in a
hotbed of soaring activity.

Bob McKellar

[bildan]

On Nov 8, 8:15*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2:24*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > On Nov 8, 7:09*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
> > > Here are the FAA numbers of all glider ratings, abinitio and add-ons
>
> > >http://www.soaringchapters.org/world_report/
>
> > Whatever we did in 1996, we should do it again. Can anyone explain the
> > spike upward in glider ratings?
>
> > 9B
>
> Also note the ratios of ab-initio to add-on ratings in that period and
> now.
>
> Perhaps the world wide web, increasing costs of flying power,
> generation of WWII/post WWII pilots losing medicals, increase
> disposable income, 125% loan to value home equity loans?

IIRC, It was also a time when AVGAS jumped from around $.50/gal to $2/
gal. It was a time when a sharp pencil analysis showed it no longer
made economic sense for me to own an airplane.

Fuel costs in a 2000 Hr TBO cycle went from $10,000 to $40,000 which
made fuel four times the cost of the engine overhaul. By 1996, any
trip by GA airplane could be done faster and cheaper by other means.
Burning 10 GPH at 125Kts didn't make sense. Many flying enthusiasts
who could no longer justify an airplane went to gliders.

Prior to the mid-90's, many people actually used GA airplanes as
business travel tools. Afterward, airplane ownership tended to
resemble yacht ownership. The purpose of owning an airplane became a
public display of how much money you had to spend. Money display
types are hard to convert to gliding - it isn't showy enough.

I recall an "airport day" display of a very pretty glass glider next
to a Gulfstream bizjet. The Gulfstream owner was really ****ed when
crowds gathered around the glider and not his flying yacht. He made a
scene with the airport management demanding they, "Get that glider the
hell out of here".

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:04:56 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

> I assume everyone posting to this thread with this attitude is flying a
> 1-26, a PW-5, or something similarly economical, right? I'm sure none of
> you would be so shallow as to have spent a bunch of extra money on a
> shiny glass slipper....
>
Well, I'm one of those who got hooked by an ASK-21. I fly one of the
prettier glass toys and its gratifyingly shiny, but it is 41 years old
and has Libelle written on it. So, where does that put me on your scale?


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

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Martin Gregorie > wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:04:56 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:
>
> > I assume everyone posting to this thread with this attitude is flying a
> > 1-26, a PW-5, or something similarly economical, right? I'm sure none of
> > you would be so shallow as to have spent a bunch of extra money on a
> > shiny glass slipper....
> >
> Well, I'm one of those who got hooked by an ASK-21. I fly one of the
> prettier glass toys and its gratifyingly shiny, but it is 41 years old
> and has Libelle written on it. So, where does that put me on your scale?

Seems pretty sane to me. I welcome glider pilots in any equipment that
makes them happy. I just think that people who claim that looks don't
matter ought to put their money where their mouth is....

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 16:42 09 November 2010, bildan wrote:
>
>If they persisted, they got pitched a $7,000+ "training package" in a
>2-33. Once they looked at the 2-33, that deal became a really hard
>sell.
>
>A few of them walked over to the club to find they could train in a
>well maintained G-103 or DG 505 for a small fraction of the cost, then
>passed the word around. The 2-33 deal became nearly impossible to
>sell.

I'll bet the commercial operator really appreciates the competition. Do
you not advertise? Why would *anyone* patronize the commercial operation
if you guys are available on the same field?

Certainly if a club can afford to put that kind of gliders on the field,
it's a much better situation than flying 2-33s (at least in some ways).
But my club would have to sell off our entire fleet of five gliders (wanna
buy a Blanik?) to finance just half the price of an ASK-21. It's really
hard to see how we get from here to there, particularly in these
hard-pressed times.

Jim Beckman

[noel.wade]

On Nov 9, 12:32*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:

> Well, I'm one of those who got hooked by an ASK-21. I fly one of the
> prettier glass toys and its gratifyingly shiny, but it is 41 years old
> and has Libelle written on it. So, where does that put me on your scale?

Martin -

I think you have misunderstood my last comment and the comments of
others here. No one is saying that you have to buy a DG-1000 or a Duo-
Discus or an Arcus in order to conduct training. Your example of an
ASK-21 is a sex-machine compared to the Schweizer gliders! Compare:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Schweizer2-33C-GWCV01.JPG
to
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/SCHLEICHER_ASK_21_vr.jpg

The point is that even someone who knows nothing about airplanes can
tell which one is more modern and capable. My comments were aimed at
the people who've replied on this thread and talked about how they
worked hard to become a pilot, or transitioned through a bunch of
crappy ships to get to a good one. THEY are the exception. The
average citizen (at least in the USA) is not going to slog through all
that, and their interest-level is certainly going to be affected by
how modern (or at least modern-looking) the aircraft are. Its just
human nature.

--Noel

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:41:00 -0800, noel.wade wrote:

> I think you have misunderstood my last comment and the comments of
> others here. No one is saying that you have to buy a DG-1000 or a Duo-
> Discus or an Arcus in order to conduct training.
>
No, I'm with you but a lot are arguing that even an G.103 is outrageous
when a 2-33 will do. I spoke up this time because there seemed to be a
hint of 'people who learn on glass will all be flying the latest and
greatest single seaters' and I wanted to see if I'd misread the writer:
seems that I had.

> Your example of an
> ASK-21 is a sex-machine compared to the Schweizer gliders! Compare:
>
I don't need to compare them. There's one of the Avenal 2-33s in my log
book. :-)

I like flying our club Juniors in winter or when there's some other
reason I'm not flying my Libelle and, as I've flown an ASK-23, a Ka-8 and
a PW-5, I reckon about there's an unfilled slot in my logbook that is the
same shape as a 1-26. I hear they're fun to fly even if they do penetrate
even worse than a Junior. Can they be winched?

> The point is that even someone who knows nothing about airplanes can
> tell which one is more modern and capable.
>
Sure, and I agree that's a no-brainer.

> THEY are the exception. The average
> citizen (at least in the USA) is not going to slog through all that, and
> their interest-level is certainly going to be affected by how modern (or
> at least modern-looking) the aircraft are. Its just human nature.
>
I'm probably one of them to some extent: the ASK-21 hooked me where an
ASK-13 couldn't, though to be fair that happened 10+ years after I had
the K-13 ride, I was no longer totally gung-ho about competition free
flight and was probably subconsciously looking for a new challenge.

There's a similarity: my favourite models always have been F1A towline
gliders and now winch launching is my preferred way of getting airborne,
outnumbering aero tows this year by better than 15:1.


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

[Frank Whiteley]

>
> >> Here are the FAA numbers of all glider ratings, abinitio and add-ons
>
> >>http://www.soaringchapters.org/world_report/
>
> > I am very surprised at the extremely low number of add-on glider ratings.
> > Can this be right? *Last year, only 10 power pilots added on a glider
> > rating in the entire US?
>
> > If that's true, then we should be doing a serious marketing campaign aimed
> > at power pilots who have let their medicals lapse. *That's the really low
> > hanging fruit.
>
> > --
> > Mike Schumann
>
> I question those numbers as well. *I got into gliders 2008 and have known of
> at least 4 or 5 add-ons at my small club since, and we are not located in a
> hotbed of soaring activity.
>
> Bob McKellar

I don't disagree that the numbers appear low, but we don't have any
other collection methodology. The FAA got new servers last years and
you'd expect them to be able to sort out the data.

You can't even find a glider pilot examiner on the FAA web site. You
can find a full list by FSDO region, but there's nothing to indicate
glider examiners and FAA staff are not listed. Scottsdale FSDO
publishes a list, but I couldn't find any others that do. FAA has an
LSA (glider) examiner list.

http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airmen_certification/sport_pilot/media/glider_examiner.pdf

Basically, the check ride candidate must contact the FSDO.

If we could get an exhaustive list of glider pilot examiners with good
e-mails, we could poll them.

I suspect only 50-60% of the examiners are SSA members. In my FSDO
region, 40% of DPE don't appear to have ever been SSA members.

Glad to hear of any other suggestions.

Frank Whiteley

[brianDG303[_2_]]

On Nov 9, 3:39*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:41:00 -0800, noel.wade wrote:
> > I think you have misunderstood my last comment and the comments of
> > others here. *No one is saying that you have to buy a DG-1000 or a Duo-
> > Discus or an Arcus in order to conduct training.
>
> No, I'm with you but a lot are arguing that even an G.103 is outrageous
> when a 2-33 will do. I spoke up this time because there seemed to be a
> hint of 'people who learn on glass will all be flying the latest and
> greatest single seaters' and I wanted to see if I'd misread the writer:
> seems that I had.
>
> > Your example of an
> > ASK-21 is a sex-machine compared to the Schweizer gliders! *Compare:
>
> I don't need to compare them. There's one of the Avenal 2-33s in my log
> book. :-)
>
> I like flying our club Juniors in winter or when there's some other
> reason I'm not flying my Libelle and, as I've flown an ASK-23, a Ka-8 and
> a PW-5, I reckon about there's an unfilled slot in my logbook that is the
> same shape as a 1-26. I hear they're fun to fly even if they do penetrate
> even worse than a Junior. Can they be winched?
>
> > The point is that even someone who knows nothing about airplanes can
> > tell which one is more modern and capable.
>
> Sure, and I agree that's a no-brainer.
>
> > THEY are the exception. *The average
> > citizen (at least in the USA) is not going to slog through all that, and
> > their interest-level is certainly going to be affected by how modern (or
> > at least modern-looking) the aircraft are. *Its just human nature.
>
> I'm probably one of them to some extent: the ASK-21 hooked me where an
> ASK-13 couldn't, though to be fair that happened 10+ years after I had
> the K-13 ride, I was no longer totally gung-ho about competition free
> flight and was probably subconsciously looking for a new challenge.
>
> There's a similarity: my favourite models always have been F1A towline
> gliders and now winch launching is my preferred way of getting airborne,
> outnumbering aero tows this year by better than 15:1.
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

I think there is something missed here. To say that one is shallow for
not training up in a primitive old glider isn't valid. If that were
true, then all you guys are the shallow ones, for not buying and
flying a 2-33. When I first showed up to take my glider ride 3 or 4
years ago, I jumped into a DG1000, paid my $200 to the private
operation, came back, and joined the club on the field. (The operation
is unusual because the DG1000 owner is a club CFIG and is towed up by
club towplanes, even for private rides, in direct competition with the
club trial ride program, and there are more advantages than negatives
in the arrangement.) I trained in L23s and the DG1000, with a $60 or
$75 per hour fee to use the DG1000 on top of tow fees. It was clear to
me that in most cases the learning went at exactly the same speed in
either ship, and I jumped into whichever was available.But the goal
was to fly a DG300 at some point, which I now do. In fact I owned it
long before I soloed and could fly it.

If I understand people to be saying "kids to day won't train in a 2-33
or an L23 on their way to flying a slippery ship, the will just give
up if they don't have a DG100 type plane", I think that is wrong. But
they do need to see a path to flying with the big dogs back in the
mountains or way up high at some point, in a nice plane.

Brian

[Dave Nadler]

On Nov 9, 12:48*am, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> You are absolutely right. *Looks matter a LOT. *Just look at Apple's
> success.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Darn, and there I thought he was going to say
"Just look at Dave's success".

See ya, Dave

[Derek C]

On Nov 9, 5:37*pm, bildan > wrote:
>
> IIRC, It was also a time when AVGAS jumped from around $.50/gal to $2/
> gal. *It was a time when a sharp pencil analysis showed it no longer
> made economic sense for me to own an airplane.
>
> Fuel costs in a 2000 Hr TBO cycle went from $10,000 to $40,000 which
> made fuel four times the cost of the engine overhaul. *By 1996, any
> trip by GA airplane could be done faster and cheaper by other means.
> Burning 10 GPH at 125Kts didn't make sense. *Many flying enthusiasts
> who could no longer justify an airplane went to gliders.
>
> Prior to the mid-90's, many people actually used GA airplanes as
> business travel tools. *Afterward, airplane ownership tended to
> resemble yacht ownership. *The purpose of owning an airplane became a
> public display of how much money you had to spend. *Money display
> types are hard to convert to gliding - it isn't showy enough.
>
> I recall an "airport day" display of a very pretty glass glider next
> to a Gulfstream bizjet. *The Gulfstream owner was really ****ed when
> crowds gathered around the glider and not his flying yacht. *He made a
> scene with the airport management demanding they, "Get that glider the
> hell out of here".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You are lucky that you don't live in the UK, where Avgas is (very
highly) taxed as a motor fuel, but jet fuel isn't. And this is in a
country that is an oil producer! The only good thing is that oil price
fluctuations have little effect on motor fuel prices, because most of
what you pay is tax. BTW most UK gliding clubs run their winches on
LPG (propane) or red tractor diesel because these attract a lower rate
of duty.

http://www.petrolprices.com/fuel-tax.html

UK joke:
What do you call somebody who doesn't run a car?

A tax evader!

Derek C

[Derek C]

On Nov 9, 4:34*am, Derek ruddock > wrote:
> Funnily enough, my first trial flight was at Cambridge Club: I was
> launched in a K13 and had a short thermalling flight, but never went
> back because I was expecting a sleek fibreglass machine rather than
> something that was older than I was (29 at the time).
> I ended up joining London gliding club, whos had a fleet of 6 K21's,
> and went solo in one of their K23's (a single seat version of a K21)
>

Lasham runs a large fleet of elderly K13s, albeit with nosewheel
conversions. I often wonder to what extent they put people off
gliding. However they are excellent trainers, with just enough vices
to teach pilots to deal with anything they may come across later in
their careers. We have a couple of K21s, but they are so bland and
easy to fly that they might cause problems later on, IMHO as an
instructor. We mainly use them for aerobatic training, glass
conversions and general fun flying.

The advantages of the K13 also include low capital value and lower
insurance costs. In fact Lasham's K13s are only insured for third
party and seat insurance, as required by EASA regulations. If we
damage them, they are either repaired by our in house maintenance
organisation or scrapped, not that we have had to do that for a long
time.

Derek C

[BruceGreeff]

On 2010/11/09 11:36 PM, Mike Ash wrote:
> In >,
> Martin > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:04:56 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:
>>
>>> I assume everyone posting to this thread with this attitude is flying a
>>> 1-26, a PW-5, or something similarly economical, right? I'm sure none of
>>> you would be so shallow as to have spent a bunch of extra money on a
>>> shiny glass slipper....
>>>
>> Well, I'm one of those who got hooked by an ASK-21. I fly one of the
>> prettier glass toys and its gratifyingly shiny, but it is 41 years old
>> and has Libelle written on it. So, where does that put me on your scale?
>
> Seems pretty sane to me. I welcome glider pilots in any equipment that
> makes them happy. I just think that people who claim that looks don't
> matter ought to put their money where their mouth is....
>

Some folk are strange and actually WANT to fly the vintage trainers.

Now - the opportunity to take the Bergie for a late afternoon lazy amble
over the river as the sun sets is not to be missed. Classic vintage wood
and fabric - gentle lift and peaceful slow flight has many attractions.
But it does not compare to pushing it in a 1:40+ glass single, or even a
composite two seater.
Personally my back is broken after less than an hour the back seat of in
most of the oldies. They are just plain horrible for instruction. My
personal maximum has been 11 flights and around 4 hours in the air in a
G103. Quite a long day if you include all the fetching and pushing
gliders, but no problem. Conversely - 8 launches on one day in a
Bergfalke II-55 cured me of wanting to instruct in vintage gliders... My
back took days to recover.

So depends who you are - I was actually attracted to the club I
initially learned at by the vintage trainers.

Having moved on - I still value some of the lessons they facilitated.
There is something to be said for learning to fly something that fights
back when you abuse it. The K21 is a honey to fly, but I wonder about
the completeness of skills it would provide if it were the only trainer
used.

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 22:29:17 +0200, BruceGreeff wrote:

> Having moved on - I still value some of the lessons they facilitated.
> There is something to be said for learning to fly something that fights
> back when you abuse it. The K21 is a honey to fly, but I wonder about
> the completeness of skills it would provide if it were the only trainer
> used.
>
Which is why we counterbalance ours with a G.103, which is better for
teaching speed control, and a Puchacz, which enthusiastically does all
the stuff an ASK-21 doesn't want to do, and is marvellous to fly solo.


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

[bildan]

On Nov 10, 1:29*pm, BruceGreeff > wrote:
> On 2010/11/09 11:36 PM, Mike Ash wrote:

> Some folk are strange and actually WANT to fly the vintage trainers.

No problem with that. I like old wooden gliders too. I just have a
problem with coercing others to fly them if they want something
better. (A 2-33 isn't 'vintage', it's just old.)

Snip---------

The K21 is a honey to fly, but I wonder about the completeness of
skills it would provide if it were the only trainer used.

Snip---------

As others have pointed out, the K-21 will spin just fine with the CG
aft and weight kits are available just for that purpose. I find even
with the CG well forward, the ASK-21 clearly exhibits all the pre-
stall/stall behaviors a student needs to learn. Just asking them to
compare how the K-21 handles at 36Kts vs 42Kts convinces them it flies
a lot better at 42. It barks, but doesn't bite.

One youngster said in delight, "Hey, it gets wobbley when it's slow
just like a bicycle". Yup!

[Derek C]

On Nov 10, 9:27*pm, bildan > wrote:
> On Nov 10, 1:29*pm, BruceGreeff > wrote:
>
> > On 2010/11/09 11:36 PM, Mike Ash wrote:
> > Some folk are strange and actually WANT to fly the vintage trainers.
>
> No problem with that. *I like old wooden gliders too. *I just have a
> problem with coercing others to fly them if they want something
> better. *(A 2-33 isn't 'vintage', it's just old.)
>
> Snip---------
>
> The K21 is a honey to fly, but I wonder about the completeness of
> skills it would provide if it were the only trainer used.
>
> Snip---------
>
> As others have pointed out, the K-21 will spin just fine with the CG
> aft and weight kits are available just for that purpose. *I find even
> with the CG well forward, the ASK-21 clearly exhibits all the pre-
> stall/stall behaviors a student needs to learn. *Just asking them to
> compare how the K-21 handles at 36Kts vs 42Kts convinces them it flies
> a lot better at 42. * It barks, but doesn't bite.
>
> One youngster said in delight, "Hey, it gets wobbley when it's slow
> just like a bicycle". *Yup!

The K21 is very stable, normal amount of adverse yaw, no tendency for
any of the controls to overbalance, and slightly lacking in rudder
power - which is one of the reasons why it is so reluctant to spin.
Many heavier pilots could get the impression that if you get a stalled
wing drop, it will always turn into a benign spiral dive. That is why
it is not a very good trainer.

Derek C

[Bruce Hoult]

On Nov 10, 10:50*am, Jim Beckman > wrote:
> Certainly if a club can afford to put that kind of gliders on the field,
> it's a much better situation than flying 2-33s (at least in some ways).
> But my club would have to sell off our entire fleet of five gliders (wanna
> buy a Blanik?) to finance just half the price of an ASK-21. *It's really
> hard to see how we get from here to there, particularly in these
> hard-pressed times. *

It's a tricky decision.

There are all kinds of people in our club, from students and
unemployed, to the merely struggling, to some reasonably wealthy
people. We are fortunate in that over the years some of the more
wealthy members have been prepared to lend money to the club at quite
nominal interest rates (e.g. 3%).

We recently bought two 18m fixed gear DG1000's (and one nice Cobra
trailer, and transponder and Cambridge 302 in one of them at present)
to use for everything from rides to basic training to early solos to
serious cross country.

In order to do this we sold a PW5, a Std Libelle, a Janus, and 2 x
Twin Astir. We also owe approximately 2/3 of a DG1000 to a club
member, which will take 5 - 10 years to pay back at current usage
levels.

I personally was opposed to turning 8 bums on seats in the sky into
only 4 (actually 9 into 5 as we retained another PW5), but the reality
is that it was a very rare day that all 8 were in use, especially as
there were only two or three in the club who liked the Janus (and half
the instructors weren't even rated in it) and the four 1970's aircraft
were starting to become more maintainance-intensive.

I'm now convinced that it was well worth turning 3 two-seaters into 2.
The DGs clearly outperform everything except the Janus, and are far
more pleasant to fly, especially the accommodations in the back seat.

I do think we would have been well-advised to keep the PW5 though.
Selling it shortened the loan payback hardly at all, and they're
excellent for early cross-country exploration. We've already started
to see early-solo students accidentally outlanding the DG1000's
(safely so far) but it's putting a hard to replace asset at more risk
than may be wise.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Nov 10, 11:41*am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> I think you have misunderstood my last comment and the comments of
> others here. *No one is saying that you have to buy a DG-1000 or a Duo-
> Discus or an Arcus in order to conduct training. *Your example of an
> ASK-21 is a sex-machine compared to the Schweizer gliders! *Compare:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Schweizer2-33C-GWC...
> tohttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/SCHLEICHER_ASK_21_....
>
> The point is that even someone who knows nothing about airplanes can
> tell which one is more modern and capable.

Absolutely! Even a thirty year old ASK21 or Grob looks (and flies)
fabulous compared to an ASK13 (or 7), Blanik, or 2-33. I think every
club that can possibly swing it financially (including loans) should
upgrade as soon as possible. We switched from Blanik to 17 year old
Grobs in 1995 and I think it was a great move.

Where I'd quibble is whether people should be buying brand new ASK21's
TODAY. We looked at them several years ago but they're hellishly
expensive for what they are. It turned out that if you got a fixed
gear, fixed 18m span DG1000 with none of the optional extras then the
price was only a few thousand more than an ASK21 and can do everything
an ASK21 can do, but with 10 points more L/D.

Another benefit that is maybe seldom considered is that the DG1000 is
surprisingly quick and pleasant to rig and derig. I've done it with
just myself and one other person (but two on the root end is
definitely helpful). We've been taking ours on far more "away"
weekends than we used to do with the Grobs or Janus. People would
mysteriously disappear if you were rigging one of those! (I haven't
tried with an ASK21 so can't comment on rigging one)

A good trailer also makes a huge difference, both to rigging and to
towing. Our Grob literally doubled the fuel consumption of my car,
while the DG1000 seems to add about 25% - 30%.

http://hoult.org/bruce/Subaru_with_TA.jpg

vs

http://twitpic.com/11uvwc

[bildan]

On Nov 10, 5:36*pm, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
> On Nov 10, 11:41*am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>
> > I think you have misunderstood my last comment and the comments of
> > others here. *No one is saying that you have to buy a DG-1000 or a Duo-
> > Discus or an Arcus in order to conduct training. *Your example of an
> > ASK-21 is a sex-machine compared to the Schweizer gliders! *Compare:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Schweizer2-33C-GWC...
> > tohttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/SCHLEICHER_ASK_21_....
>
> > The point is that even someone who knows nothing about airplanes can
> > tell which one is more modern and capable.
>
> Absolutely! Even a thirty year old ASK21 or Grob looks (and flies)
> fabulous compared to an ASK13 (or 7), Blanik, or 2-33. *I think every
> club that can possibly swing it financially (including loans) should
> upgrade as soon as possible. We switched from Blanik to 17 year old
> Grobs in 1995 and I think it was a great move.
>
> Where I'd quibble is whether people should be buying brand new ASK21's
> TODAY. We looked at them several years ago but they're hellishly
> expensive for what they are. It turned out that if you got a fixed
> gear, fixed 18m span DG1000 with none of the optional extras then the
> price was only a few thousand more than an ASK21 and can do everything
> an ASK21 can do, but with 10 points more L/D.
>
> Another benefit that is maybe seldom considered is that the DG1000 is
> surprisingly quick and pleasant to rig and derig. I've done it with
> just myself and one other person (but two on the root end is
> definitely helpful). We've been taking ours on far more "away"
> weekends than we used to do with the Grobs or Janus. People would
> mysteriously disappear if you were rigging one of those! (I haven't
> tried with an ASK21 so can't comment on rigging one)
>
> A good trailer also makes a huge difference, both to rigging and to
> towing. Our Grob literally doubled the fuel consumption of my car,
> while the DG1000 seems to add about 25% - 30%.
>
> http://hoult.org/bruce/Subaru_with_TA.jpg
>
> vs
>
> http://twitpic.com/11uvwc

An ASK-21 also rigs easily enough to keep it in a trailer. Your
purchase arguments in favor of the DG1000 make sense.

[No Name]

Another factor is whether the club/FBO operates on weekends only
or 7 days per week if the weather is OK for flying. I can't see how
an ASK 21 or DG1000 can be economical if flown only on weekends
and/or is trailered for several months of the year. Still, finding
instructors and ride pilots who can reliably be available 7 days per
week isn't easy. Especially if you want them to work for free ;-)

[Brad[_2_]]

On Nov 10, 4:36*pm, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
> On Nov 10, 11:41*am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>
> > I think you have misunderstood my last comment and the comments of
> > others here. *No one is saying that you have to buy a DG-1000 or a Duo-
> > Discus or an Arcus in order to conduct training. *Your example of an
> > ASK-21 is a sex-machine compared to the Schweizer gliders! *Compare:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Schweizer2-33C-GWC...
> > tohttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/SCHLEICHER_ASK_21_....
>
> > The point is that even someone who knows nothing about airplanes can
> > tell which one is more modern and capable.
>
> Absolutely! Even a thirty year old ASK21 or Grob looks (and flies)
> fabulous compared to an ASK13 (or 7), Blanik, or 2-33. *I think every
> club that can possibly swing it financially (including loans) should
> upgrade as soon as possible. We switched from Blanik to 17 year old
> Grobs in 1995 and I think it was a great move.
>
> Where I'd quibble is whether people should be buying brand new ASK21's
> TODAY. We looked at them several years ago but they're hellishly
> expensive for what they are. It turned out that if you got a fixed
> gear, fixed 18m span DG1000 with none of the optional extras then the
> price was only a few thousand more than an ASK21 and can do everything
> an ASK21 can do, but with 10 points more L/D.
>
> Another benefit that is maybe seldom considered is that the DG1000 is
> surprisingly quick and pleasant to rig and derig. I've done it with
> just myself and one other person (but two on the root end is
> definitely helpful). We've been taking ours on far more "away"
> weekends than we used to do with the Grobs or Janus. People would
> mysteriously disappear if you were rigging one of those! (I haven't
> tried with an ASK21 so can't comment on rigging one)
>
> A good trailer also makes a huge difference, both to rigging and to
> towing. Our Grob literally doubled the fuel consumption of my car,
> while the DG1000 seems to add about 25% - 30%.
>
> http://hoult.org/bruce/Subaru_with_TA.jpg
>
> vs
>
> http://twitpic.com/11uvwc

There are 3 DG-1000's at our glider field, from what I've seen they
can be solo rigged with the proper equipment.

Brad

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > Bruce Hoult > writes:

>Where I'd quibble is whether people should be buying brand new ASK21's
>TODAY. We looked at them several years ago but they're hellishly
>expensive for what they are. It turned out that if you got a fixed
>gear, fixed 18m span DG1000 with none of the optional extras then the
>price was only a few thousand more than an ASK21 and can do everything
>an ASK21 can do, but with 10 points more L/D.

And the DG is also expensive. I am not certain about the service
life of any of these, but if they are 3000 hours to scrap, then the
current $102,500 price (74300 Euro posted by unclhank on 10/21/10)
$34.17 per hour just for the capital of the glider, not counting
maintenance, insurance, taxes, storage.

If you can run them longer, the cost goes down, but the hourly cost
of operation is still high.

Show the potential student the ask-12 or the dg-1000, and show him
the cost of operation, along with an old glider that doesn't have the
high hourly operating costs, and a lot will figure that saving a bunch
of money is good - it can mean more flying time in the less impresive
glider.

( Written by one who did a lot of my primary training in the least
expensive Cessna 150 I could find. I got more time in the air for
the same money, too. )

Alan

[BruceGreeff]

Hi Bill

Our two Bergfalkes had more in common with a packing crate (including
the holes covered with duck tape...)

Having done a refurb on both they are now quite respectable.

Interestingly - I braded them as "Vintage" on our website (hell - it was
about all we could differentiate on) and it worked. We attracted folk
who like old cars, and have a steady trickle of folk coming for an
intro. Even had a couple of international visitors over the years.

Still - we used our Blanik L13 for the more advanced training until
recently.

Maybe something composite and shiny is in the future of the club.

Bruce

On 2010/11/10 11:27 PM, bildan wrote:
> On Nov 10, 1:29 pm, > wrote:
>> On 2010/11/09 11:36 PM, Mike Ash wrote:
>
>> Some folk are strange and actually WANT to fly the vintage trainers.
>
> No problem with that. I like old wooden gliders too. I just have a
> problem with coercing others to fly them if they want something
> better. (A 2-33 isn't 'vintage', it's just old.)
>
> Snip---------
>
> The K21 is a honey to fly, but I wonder about the completeness of
> skills it would provide if it were the only trainer used.
>
> Snip---------
>
> As others have pointed out, the K-21 will spin just fine with the CG
> aft and weight kits are available just for that purpose. I find even
> with the CG well forward, the ASK-21 clearly exhibits all the pre-
> stall/stall behaviors a student needs to learn. Just asking them to
> compare how the K-21 handles at 36Kts vs 42Kts convinces them it flies
> a lot better at 42. It barks, but doesn't bite.
>
> One youngster said in delight, "Hey, it gets wobbley when it's slow
> just like a bicycle". Yup!

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57

[BruceGreeff]

Hi Alan

The argument about cost of ownership is true, but you have the real cost
the wrong way around.

An all the bessl and whistles Duodiscus with a sustainer engine and top
of the line ground handling gear will cost you around $160k, the DG1000
is similar.
You can bring the costs down to ~$110K by speccing for club use.

So - a considerable investment.
But put the real numbers into a spreadsheet and it makes sense.
The new composite has an airframe life of 6000 hours initial + up to
15000 on extensions. So work on a time to trash of 6000 hours.
then consider the operating costs -
The maintenance effort on a 30-40 year old glider is considerable.
Recover costs lots in time and effort to do - and the glider is not
flying while that happens. Optimistically this is a three week job.
The tubes and timber rust, rot, bend and generally need attention -
particularly in the wet.
The older ones have skids that wear out and need replacement every few
years.
The instruments are often as old as the glider, and need refurbishment
(winter is great and cheap - others are less so)

Metal gliders get fatigue, and depending on where you operate, may need
very rare skills to maintain.

The composite fleet needs very little maintenance in comparison. I fly
at a couple of clubs.
One that has three Grob Twin Astirs with tens of thousands of launches
and hours between them. And , indeed after thirty years of intensive use
they are getting a little tired. Still look and fly a lot better than
what they replaced, and the actual cost of operation is lower. This club
has 20+ students at any one time and is thriving. T'other bunch have a
couple of Bergfalkes and a L13. It continues to stagger along - current
situation is L13 grounded (we took it out of service before the AD
because of loose rivets on the wings needing repair) and one Bergie out
of service for a new skid.

Both clubs have three aircraft - but the vintage operators battle to
consistently have two gliders airworthy and on the runway.

So - I am all for keeping the vintage stuff flying, but it is
uneconomical to depend on them for running a club. The cost of
maintenance, cost of downtime and cost of members who lose interest when
they see them is too high for them to be the sole training option in a
club operation. A "blended" approach like Lasham where there is some K13
and some glass makes a lot of sense. But the K13 is about the only wood
and fabric trainer I would recommend - and they are getting old.

Bruce
On 2010/11/11 8:59 AM, Alan wrote:
> In > Bruce > writes:
>
>> Where I'd quibble is whether people should be buying brand new ASK21's
>> TODAY. We looked at them several years ago but they're hellishly
>> expensive for what they are. It turned out that if you got a fixed
>> gear, fixed 18m span DG1000 with none of the optional extras then the
>> price was only a few thousand more than an ASK21 and can do everything
>> an ASK21 can do, but with 10 points more L/D.
>
> And the DG is also expensive. I am not certain about the service
> life of any of these, but if they are 3000 hours to scrap, then the
> current $102,500 price (74300 Euro posted by unclhank on 10/21/10)
> $34.17 per hour just for the capital of the glider, not counting
> maintenance, insurance, taxes, storage.
>
> If you can run them longer, the cost goes down, but the hourly cost
> of operation is still high.
>
> Show the potential student the ask-12 or the dg-1000, and show him
> the cost of operation, along with an old glider that doesn't have the
> high hourly operating costs, and a lot will figure that saving a bunch
> of money is good - it can mean more flying time in the less impresive
> glider.
>
> ( Written by one who did a lot of my primary training in the least
> expensive Cessna 150 I could find. I got more time in the air for
> the same money, too. )
>
> Alan

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57

[Darryl Ramm]

On Nov 10, 10:59*pm, (Alan) wrote:
> In article > Bruce Hoult > writes:
>
> >Where I'd quibble is whether people should be buying brand new ASK21's
> >TODAY. We looked at them several years ago but they're hellishly
> >expensive for what they are. It turned out that if you got a fixed
> >gear, fixed 18m span DG1000 with none of the optional extras then the
> >price was only a few thousand more than an ASK21 and can do everything
> >an ASK21 can do, but with 10 points more L/D.
>
> * And the DG is also expensive. *I am not certain about the service
> life of any of these, but if they are 3000 hours to scrap, then the
> current $102,500 price (74300 Euro posted by unclhank on 10/21/10)
> $34.17 per hour just for the capital of the glider, not counting
> maintenance, insurance, taxes, storage.
>
> * If you can run them longer, the cost goes down, but the hourly cost
> of operation is still high.
>
> * Show the potential student the ask-12 or the dg-1000, and show him
> the cost of operation, along with an old glider that doesn't have the
> high hourly operating costs, and a lot will figure that saving a bunch
> of money is good - it can mean more flying time in the less impresive
> glider.
>
> * ( Written by one who did a lot of my primary training in the least
> expensive Cessna 150 I could find. *I got more time in the air for
> the same money, too. )
>
> * * * * Alan

Why would you cap a DG-1000 at a 3,000 hour life? There are already
published 3000, 6000, 9000 (and every 1000 hours) inspections for the
DG-1000. There are many high time ASK-21 around well beyond 3,000
hours. Many well used and patched up but still bright and shiny and
modern looking.

OTOH the price quoted did was too low. No trailer, instruments, other
options, etc. and I'm not sure a linear depreciation is the right
model.

Darryl

[Bruce Hoult]

On Nov 11, 7:59*pm, (Alan) wrote:
> In article > Bruce Hoult
> And the DG is also expensive. *I am not certain about the service
> life of any of these, but if they are 3000 hours to scrap, then the
> current $102,500 price (74300 Euro posted by unclhank on 10/21/10)
> $34.17 per hour just for the capital of the glider, not counting
> maintenance, insurance, taxes, storage.

That's about 10k EUR more than when we were looking, but that was
2006. If the relativity has remained the same then I'd guess the
DG1000s Club would be about $80k EUR now.


> * If you can run them longer, the cost goes down, but the hourly cost
> of operation is still high.

We put about 250 hours on each of our DG1000's in a year. At that rate
3000 hours would be 12 years.

As it happens, before the DG1000's we had two 1978ish Grob Twin Astirs
for about 12 years, buying them in 1995 and selling in 2007-2008. We
paid around 30k EUR for them (17 years old), put about the same number
of hours per year on them, and then sold them for around 25k EUR.

The clubs we sold them to apparently don't think they are ready to
throw away.

Our DG rep told us 12,000 hours expected service life for the DG1000s.
That doesn't seem unreasonable.

That brings the per hour cost down to about $9 per hour.


> * Show the potential student the ask-12 or the dg-1000, and show him
> the cost of operation, along with an old glider that doesn't have the
> high hourly operating costs, and a lot will figure that saving a bunch
> of money is good - it can mean more flying time in the less impresive
> glider.

Older gliders cost less per hour for capital, but tend to cost more
per hour fomr maintenance.

I'll also note that when I was flying Blaniks I thought 30 minutes was
a pretty good flight unless it was really booming, which it seldom is
here. In the DG1000 I can stay up as long as I want on a lot more days
throughout the year. That saves a huge amount on tows.

[Sandy Stevenson]

On Nov 10, 1:29*pm, BruceGreeff > wrote:
> On 2010/11/09 11:36 PM, Mike Ash wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In >,
> > * Martin > *wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:04:56 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:
>
> >>> I assume everyone posting to this thread with this attitude is flying a
> >>> 1-26, a PW-5, or something similarly economical, right? I'm sure none of
> >>> you would be so shallow as to have spent a bunch of extra money on a
> >>> shiny glass slipper....
>
> >> Well, I'm one of those who got hooked by an ASK-21. I fly one of the
> >> prettier glass toys and its gratifyingly shiny, but it is 41 years old
> >> and has Libelle written on it. So, where does that put me on your scale?
>
> > Seems pretty sane to me. I welcome glider pilots in any equipment that
> > makes them happy. I just think that people who claim that looks don't
> > matter ought to put their money where their mouth is....
>
> Some folk are strange and actually WANT to fly the vintage trainers.
>
> Now - the opportunity to take the Bergie for a late afternoon lazy amble
> over the river as the sun sets is not to be missed. Classic vintage wood
> and fabric - gentle lift and peaceful slow flight has many attractions.
> But it does not compare to pushing it in a 1:40+ glass single, or even a
> composite two seater.
> Personally my back is broken after less than an hour the back seat of in
> most of the oldies. They are just plain horrible for instruction. My
> personal maximum has been 11 flights and around 4 hours in the air in a
> G103. Quite a long day if you include all the fetching and pushing
> gliders, but no problem. Conversely - 8 launches on one day in a
> Bergfalke II-55 cured me of wanting to instruct in vintage gliders... My
> back took days to recover.
>
> So depends who you are - I was actually attracted to the club I
> initially learned at by the vintage trainers.
>
> Having moved on - I still value some of the lessons they facilitated.
> There is something to be said for learning to fly something that fights
> back when you abuse it. The K21 is a honey to fly, but I wonder about
> the completeness of skills it would provide if it were the only trainer
> used.
>
> --
> Bruce Greeff
> T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I trained in 2-33's years ago, left gliding, and retrained upon my
return in Blanik L-13's, graduating to an L-33 and Jantar standard.
Now my club also owns a K-21.
My perspective, however, is from doing a stint as maintenance
director.
Regardless of it's flying qualities, the Blanik was designed in 1956
when repair labor was cheap, and
now that repair labor and parts have become very much more expensive,
they are increasingly more pricey to fix properly.
From what I've seen, this trend is going to make any procedure to
recertify them very difficult to make economical.
Moreover, their minium 30 year age is going to make metal fatigue an
increasingly difficult problem to deal with even if they are re-
certified.
The high up front cost of K-21's is a signficant hurdle for all, but
the 18,000 hour life and limited number of metal parts.
is a major ongoing advantage if that hurdle can be crossed.
So even if the current crisis passes, it will only provide breathing
room to find the answer we really need:
a low cost fiberglass trainer with the right handling characteristics
from a company with reliable parts supply.
That will be a very tough bill to fill unless we get a prolonged
period of a 95 cent Euro, which doesn't seem likely.

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > Darryl Ramm > writes:

>Why would you cap a DG-1000 at a 3,000 hour life? There are already
>published 3000, 6000, 9000 (and every 1000 hours) inspections for the
>DG-1000. There are many high time ASK-21 around well beyond 3,000
>hours. Many well used and patched up but still bright and shiny and
>modern looking.

My bad. I was way too asleep when I wrote that.

I found later that the service life of the ask-21 is 18,000 hours,
apparently with similar inspections, where the DG claims 12,000 per
another poster. In either case, the cost for that does go way down.


>OTOH the price quoted did was too low. No trailer, instruments, other
>options, etc. and I'm not sure a linear depreciation is the right
>model.


Indeed, all true. I had forgotten about trailer/instruments/etc.,
stupidly assuming they were included. Linear depreciation is most
likely wrong, too, though lots of cost/hour operation calculations
seem to use i.

I should have included insurance costs and other costs that are
calculated into operating cost. For aircraft used for clubs and
training, I would expect this to be a big item, and the order of
magnitude higher price of the glider would have a large effect on
the price of the annual insurance bill.


But, I blew it big on the 3000 hours.

Alan

[Tony V]

>> http://www.soaringchapters.org/world_report/
>
> I am very surprised at the extremely low number of add-on glider
> ratings. Can this be right? Last year, only 10 power pilots added on a
> glider rating in the entire US?
>
> If that's true, then we should be doing a serious marketing campaign
> aimed at power pilots who have let their medicals lapse. That's the
> really low hanging fruit.


Low hanging fruit? Perhaps not. I knew a fellow a fellow software
engineer (owned an Aztec), that was about to ditch a 6 figure software
career to fly commuters for peanuts because he "just loved to fly" (his
words). When i mentioned soaring to him, he just shook his head. It
either rings your chimes or it doesn't - and flying one thing does not
automatically translate into wanting to fly something else.

Hang gliding is a lot more accessible now since there is a lot more aero
towing. The funny thing is that when I mention hang gliding to sail
plane pilots, they shake their heads the same way.

Tony

[Johan Nykvist]

At 15:47 14 September 2010, RN wrote:
>The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at
>alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we
>will need.
>
>We would be very interested in other club's experience with other
>trainers, and what you are using and planning to use in the future.
>
>Our evaluation parameters include high useful load for heavy students
>and instructors, ease and availability of parts for maintenance and
>repair, durability for student solo operations, and up front cost .
>
>John
>

First of all..most important is to have a training glider at the club
whatever it is..well you know..no training no new pilots in the club..

Although, alot of of the older wood/metal/fabric gliders are a treat
to fly and thermal. But more mordern trainers prepares new pilots better
for the newer breed of gliders.

What to buy??

Defenetly depends on how much money one got to spend..That also
mostly depends on how much it will fly per year..

Small club..maby just have little money to spend/ flyes it 100 hrs a
year?
Big club have more money obviusly..they maby can fly it 3-4 times as much
as the small club..

In my oppinion, Duo, DG 500, DG1000 (a beast to ground handle) ect
are not primary trainers. Not rugged enough..

1 If you have/want to spend alot. ASK 21, best trainer in total..of
imortance is that its still in production, and have great quality in build
and manufacturer support! But its expencive..even used.
60.000 Euro for a old with maby 6-8000 hrs on it...But its also a
indicator of popularity and quality. Also, it will hold its walue over
time. Wich probably makes it the cheapest over time. But, again you have
to have the money... If money is not much of an object..Buy a new
ASK-21mi!!

2. If you cant reach a ASK 21, Twin Astirs are alot of bang for the buck.
Yes, handeling is a bit of a tank compared to a ASK 21.
But it glides far better... It is rugged enough for traing. Ofcoarse
Twin 2 and 3 are better, its a development.. You can buy one for about
20-30.000 euros. Grob is after reconstruction still giving
support with bulletins ect. Spareparts sales are outsorced to Lidner
(german glider workshop) So, Twins are good value trainers.

3. Polish glass trainers flyes good, but are of less build quality than
the above, support/spareparts is what I know, unsure..
But also rugged construction.

4. Again, most important is that you have a glider to safely train
new pilots and clubmembers...No trainer, no new members..
Performance is fun, but in the end, flying is fun, whatever u
can fly in!!!

5 Nothing lasts forever..not even gliders (but they do survive longtime)
When too old, its time to replace them with something newer..But risking a
clubs economy to buy something beyond
limits is just stupid..Its better to have the club alive, then not
having a club at all...

6 To keep the the new pilot active, he/she needs something
fun to fly after he got the licence too..so one maby shouldnt spend
all the funds on a trainer..a glider with resonable performance
for XC ect.. Some clubs (including my club) have been so focused
primary training that they forgets about the next steps in the gliding
career..So many basic trained pilots quits way to early..
That is a bad example of wrongly distrubuted enery and assets.


We changed ouer 2 Bergfalkes for Twins 15 years ago, and never
looked back. If we could afford it, we would buy ASK 21. But Twins have
worked great. No major issues at all, due to construction ect. Repaires
yes, if you damage a wing, it needs
repairs..regardless of manufacturer ect.. Thousends of landings with new
pilots. Some better than others..some really hard..never
a damaged undercarrige. It has done good job as trainer. Its also used
for xc traing. All in all, its a good club glider.

Now, as most clubs, we dont have the same amount of new members that want
to learn to fly. So, we want (if we can find the funds) to sell 1 twin,
instead buy a Duo. Its a good 2 seater
for the more "advanced" training, XC ect. But still a very good
glider for the members who are more experienced..And yes, hotter ship for
trial flights and "gift certificate flights".. Better promotor glider
than the now well used Twins...

[Bruce Hoult]

On Nov 24, 1:18*pm, Johan Nykvist > wrote:
> In my oppinion, Duo, DG 500, DG1000 (a beast to ground handle) ect
> are not primary trainers. Not rugged enough..

What do you base this on?

We just moved from Twin Astirs to DG1000s. I can't see any way in
which a fixed gear DG1000 Club is more of a beast to ground handle
than a Twin Astir! In particular, lifting the tail to put the dolly on
is considerably lighter.

That this is so should be fairly obvious from the fact that a properly
ballasted DG1000 Club is very nearly balanced on the main wheel and
may sit on either the nose wheel or the tail wheel.

Lacking nose wheels, and not wanting the nose to come into contact
with the ground either at rest or when using the wheel brake, the main
wheel on the Twin Astir is considerably further forward than it is on
a 3-wheel undercarriage glider such as the ASK-21, Twin II/III, or
DG1000 Club. The same is also true of the non-Club version of the
DG1000 -- the retractable wheel is very far forward and there is a lot
of weight on the tail.

Perhaps you are not distinguishing between the (cheaper) Club and
standard versions of the DG1000?

Here's what I'm talking about:

http://is.gd/hGLKd

I'm also not sure where you get the "Not rugged enough" opinion. They
seem to be very well built.

[Tim Mara]

I'm told the Blanik L-13's are flying in the Czech republic now as long as
they have a properly documented history
anyone heard anything new on the status in the USA?
tim



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5646 (20101124) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[Mike Schumann]

On 11/17/2010 9:59 PM, Tony V wrote:
>
>>> http://www.soaringchapters.org/world_report/
>>
>> I am very surprised at the extremely low number of add-on glider
>> ratings. Can this be right? Last year, only 10 power pilots added on a
>> glider rating in the entire US?
>>
>> If that's true, then we should be doing a serious marketing campaign
>> aimed at power pilots who have let their medicals lapse. That's the
>> really low hanging fruit.
>
>
> Low hanging fruit? Perhaps not. I knew a fellow a fellow software
> engineer (owned an Aztec), that was about to ditch a 6 figure software
> career to fly commuters for peanuts because he "just loved to fly" (his
> words). When i mentioned soaring to him, he just shook his head. It
> either rings your chimes or it doesn't - and flying one thing does not
> automatically translate into wanting to fly something else.
>
> Hang gliding is a lot more accessible now since there is a lot more aero
> towing. The funny thing is that when I mention hang gliding to sail
> plane pilots, they shake their heads the same way.
>
> Tony

Did this guy ever take a glider ride?

--
Mike Schumann

[Johan Nykvist]

At 09:10 24 November 2010, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>On Nov 24, 1:18=A0pm, Johan Nykvist wrote:
>> In my oppinion, Duo, DG 500, DG1000 (a beast to ground handle) ect
>> are not primary trainers. Not rugged enough..
>
>What do you base this on?
>
>We just moved from Twin Astirs to DG1000s. I can't see any way in
>which a fixed gear DG1000 Club is more of a beast to ground handle
>than a Twin Astir! In particular, lifting the tail to put the dolly on
>is considerably lighter.
>
>That this is so should be fairly obvious from the fact that a properly
>ballasted DG1000 Club is very nearly balanced on the main wheel and
>may sit on either the nose wheel or the tail wheel.
>
>Lacking nose wheels, and not wanting the nose to come into contact
>with the ground either at rest or when using the wheel brake, the main
>wheel on the Twin Astir is considerably further forward than it is on
>a 3-wheel undercarriage glider such as the ASK-21, Twin II/III, or
>DG1000 Club. The same is also true of the non-Club version of the
>DG1000 -- the retractable wheel is very far forward and there is a lot
>of weight on the tail.
>
>Perhaps you are not distinguishing between the (cheaper) Club and
>standard versions of the DG1000?
>
>Here's what I'm talking about:
>
>http://is.gd/hGLKd
>
>I'm also not sure where you get the "Not rugged enough" opinion. They
>seem to be very well built.
>

Oh, Im sorry!
I didnt think of the club version. My experience is from
DG1000T. Its retractble landingear is hard work to operate. Also im not
sure its rugged enough for longterm abuse from learners
somtimes hard landings...well, some experineced pilots too! =)
Not to mention the electrical gear..

Personally I think all of them is great gliders. But maby not for basic
training. I ofcoarse can be wrong. My main point is they might be a to
tricky to for beginners (to hard learning curve) to
maintain correct airspeed at landings ect. Due to the higher performance,
its accelerates very quickly when lowering the attitude.

Is my personal oppinion. Sorry for not being clear enogh.

The perfect world, I think, would be ASK 21 for basic training and
a DuoT, DG1000T or ArcusT for the more advanced training.

Nice ship on the link!! =)

[John Smith]

Johan Nykvist wrote:
> Personally I think all of them is great gliders. But maby not for basic
> training. I of coarse can be wrong.

You are. Our club regularly uses the DG1000 for primary training.
Retractable gear and 20 meters, no problem whatsoever. And rugged it is.
The only weak point is the less than optimal view from the rear seat.

Critics may mention the high cockpit which is hard to enter and the
heavy tail. Well, the technique to enter the cockpit can be learned. And
the heavy tail can easily be lifted if one of the pilots or whoever sits
on the gliders nose. At least we are very happy with it.

[Chuck Coyne]

At 20:36 24 November 2010, Mike Schumann wrote:
>On 11/17/2010 9:59 PM, Tony V wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.soaringchapters.org/world_report/
>>>
>>> I am very surprised at the extremely low number of add-on
glider
>>> ratings. Can this be right? Last year, only 10 power pilots
added on a
>>> glider rating in the entire US?
From the January 2010 issue to the December 2010 issue of
Soaring Magazine, we published in the Milestones section the
notices of about 20 power pilots who had added the glider rating.
It's pretty doubtful that 100% of the add-on rating recipients send
the photos and info to the magazine. (A few of the ratings in the
January, February issues may have been from 2009). FWIW
Chuck Coyne

[Tony V]

>>> If that's true, then we should be doing a serious marketing campaign
>>> aimed at power pilots who have let their medicals lapse. That's the
>>> really low hanging fruit.
>>
>>
>> Low hanging fruit? Perhaps not. I knew a fellow a fellow software
>> engineer (owned an Aztec), that was about to ditch a 6 figure software
>> career to fly commuters for peanuts because he "just loved to fly" (his
>> words). When i mentioned soaring to him, he just shook his head. It
>> either rings your chimes or it doesn't - and flying one thing does not
>> automatically translate into wanting to fly something else.
>> Tony
>
> Did this guy ever take a glider ride?


Not that I know of. He showed no interest at all.

Tony