Some gliders safer than others?

[Nicholas L]

Are some glider designs much safer than others? Or do certain designs put their pilots at risk for certain types of injuries during a crash?

Looking at the Libelle with the bubble canopy it makes me wonder if the glider flipped on you during a bad landing or crash if the pilot would suffer head/ neck injuries?

The dg website Has an interesting article on reinforcing the sides of the cockpit:
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/index.php?id=safety-does-not-sell-e

Is there a source for information on this?

[joesimmers[_2_]]

Modern Schleicher gliders (since mid 90's)have a crash cockpit
and a great landing gear strut to take the hit instead of
the pilots back. These are standard in all Schleichers.

I think they are the only one with the crash cockpit design.

[Dave Nadler]

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 7:45:03 AM UTC-4, joesimmers wrote:
> I think [Schleichers] are the only one with the crash cockpit design.

Wrong. Many modern gliders have reinforced cockpits
and many have energy-absorbing gear. Lange also adds
a crush zone in nose:
http://www.lange-aviation.com/htm/english/products/antares_20e/safety.html

RAS - Rampant Aviation Speculation....

[son_of_flubber]

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:33:31 PM UTC-4, Nicholas L wrote:
> Are some glider designs much safer than others? Or do certain designs put their pilots at risk for certain types of injuries during a crash?
>

To sharpen the question to match your intention, "Are some gliders more survivable in a crash?"

One of my favorite tidbits on this topic is that the much maligned SGS 2-33 has been shown to survive a crash better than most. Part of the reason for that is that a 2-33 will probably be going slower than most when it crashes.

Some gliders are easier to spin than others, and one could argue that those types are more likely to crash when improperly piloted.

[K]

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 9:33:31 PM UTC-6, Nicholas L wrote:
> Are some glider designs much safer than others? Or do certain designs put their pilots at risk for certain types of injuries during a crash?
>
> Is there a source for information on this?

The link you posted is from a lecture that is over a decade ago. I think since this time safety cockpits are no longer compulsory and they are a requirement for Certification in most Countries. I disagree with the conclusions drawn in that lecture. I think most pilots, with all other things being equal, would purchase the safer glider.
It is possible, but due to the short gear highly unlikely, that a glider will flip and pin the pilot. This does happen in powered aircraft and roll over protection is provided on the better designs.

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

You should join OSTIV - the scientific and technical organization for soaring. www.OSTIV.org. They have a Sailplane Development Panel, and a sub-group on Crashworthiness. On the sub-group page, there is a Safe and Crashworthy Cockpit
Short report by W. Röger, FH Aachen, from February 2007; it is interesting. There have been papers describing improved crashworthiness over the years in OSTIV. You can search the index for details on glider safety.

There is also a program for reporting cockpit damage, so that there is data that designers can use to design safer cockpits (disturbing but not graphic pictures of testing). As they say, without data, you are a person with an opinion.

OSTIV does good work, and we all benefit.

[Papa3[_2_]]

Just to expand a little bit more... all of the major manufacturers have changed their philosophy to a greater or lesser extent around cockpit design over time. I fly an LS8, which is largely based on the later model LS6. If you look at the cockpit of an early LS6, vs the later LS6 and the LS8, you can see significant changes in the construction of the cockpit area and the seat pan in particular. The same applies to Schemp-Hirth (e.g. later Ventus2 vs. original Ventus). So, other things being equal, a later generation of a given class of glider from a given manufacturer probably affords better crash protection than the prior generation (e.g. ASW-24 vs. ASW-19; LS8 vs. LS4; Ventus 2 vs. Ventus). How the various manufacturers stack up when comparing gliders of the same generation (e.g. LS8 vs. ASW28 vs. Discus2) is probably a little harder to quantify without extensive testing. I know some has been done (see the OSTIV link in this thread), and I'm sure the "conventional wisdom" gives the nod to Schleicher. It would be nice to see some more hard data.

P3


On Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:03:47 AM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Thursday, October 24, 2013 7:45:03 AM UTC-4, joesimmers wrote:
>
> > I think [Schleichers] are the only one with the crash cockpit design.
>
>
>
> Wrong. Many modern gliders have reinforced cockpits
>
> and many have energy-absorbing gear. Lange also adds
>
> a crush zone in nose:
>
> http://www.lange-aviation.com/htm/english/products/antares_20e/safety.html
>
>
>
> RAS - Rampant Aviation Speculation....

[Wallace Berry[_2_]]

In article >,
Papa3 > wrote:

> Just to expand a little bit more... all of the major manufacturers have
> changed their philosophy to a greater or lesser extent around cockpit design
> over time. I fly an LS8, which is largely based on the later model LS6.
> If you look at the cockpit of an early LS6, vs the later LS6 and the LS8,
> you can see significant changes in the construction of the cockpit area and
> the seat pan in particular. The same applies to Schemp-Hirth (e.g. later
> Ventus2 vs. original Ventus). So, other things being equal, a later
> generation of a given class of glider from a given manufacturer probably
> affords better crash protection than the prior generation (e.g. ASW-24 vs.
> ASW-19; LS8 vs. LS4; Ventus 2 vs. Ventus). How the various manufacturers
> stack up when comparing gliders of the same generation (e.g. LS8 vs. ASW28
> vs. Discus2) is probably a little harder to quantify without extensive
> testing. I know some has been done (see the OSTIV link in this thread),
> and I'm sure the "conventional wisdom" gives the nod to Schleicher. It would
> be nice to see some more hard data.
>
> P3
>

I fly an early H-301 Libelle (serial #19). It has a significant safety
feature not seen in many other gliders. The fuselage is so thin that it
allows one see out if the canopy fogs over.

Seriously, Libelles would, in no way, be construed as having a "safety
cockpit", however, there have been relatively few fatalities in
Libelles. I think their slightly wobbly, unstable feel encourages pilots
to pay attention to their flying.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:17:44 AM UTC-4, WB wrote:

> I fly an early H-301 Libelle (serial #19). It has a significant safety
>
> feature not seen in many other gliders. The fuselage is so thin that it
>
> allows one see out if the canopy fogs over.
>
>
>
> Seriously, Libelles would, in no way, be construed as having a "safety
>
> cockpit", however, there have been relatively few fatalities in
>
> Libelles. I think their slightly wobbly, unstable feel encourages pilots
>
> to pay attention to their flying.
>


An extra helping of humor, on toasted wry. I'm going to chuckle about that all afternoon.

T8

[kirk.stant]

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 7:50:13 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

> One of my favorite tidbits on this topic is that the much maligned SGS 2-33 has been shown to survive a crash better than most. Part of the reason for that is that a 2-33 will probably be going slower than most when it crashes.

What do you base this conclusion on? I've seen several 2-33s that have been crashed and sure wouldn't want to be in one! I know of a passenger that broke an ankle in a stalled 2-33 crash that broke the plane in two (behind the wing trailing edge), and having spent some time giving rides in the back seat of those horrible things, would sure not want to be in one during a hard landing!

Seriously, has anyone actually looked up the statistics on 2-seat crashes/injuries and compared 2-33/Blanik/K-13/G-103/ASK-21 stats?

There is a good reason the 2-33 is much maligned - it deserves it! Saying it is a good glider is like saying the Pinto was a good car - because it was cheap and it ran, no more. But I guess if your standards are low enough, just about anything will do.

Kirk
66
(waiting for the usual flurry of retorts about how wonderful the good old Gollywhomper is ;^)

[BruceGreeff]

The Scheibe trainers are enormously strong.
The Bergfalkes have a long travel sprung skid to absorb energy in a hard
landing.

Seen them being stress tested more than once and they have much more
give before damage than a modern glass design.

Conversely and unfortunately the seat design is so poor that - should
you reach the end of travel on the skid there is a virtual guarantee of
spinal injury.

I have seen enough fatal or serious injury wrecks to have no illusions
about how much protection that cockpit will provide. It is a little like
the adage , that if you want people to drive carefully one should
replace the airbag with a sharpened spike...

The best modern cockpits are a lot better than their predecessors, but
it is little comfort.

Bruce

On 2013/10/24 5:29 PM, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:17:44 AM UTC-4, WB wrote:
>
>> I fly an early H-301 Libelle (serial #19). It has a significant safety
>>
>> feature not seen in many other gliders. The fuselage is so thin that it
>>
>> allows one see out if the canopy fogs over.
>>
>>
>>
>> Seriously, Libelles would, in no way, be construed as having a "safety
>>
>> cockpit", however, there have been relatively few fatalities in
>>
>> Libelles. I think their slightly wobbly, unstable feel encourages pilots
>>
>> to pay attention to their flying.
>>
>
>
> An extra helping of humor, on toasted wry. I'm going to chuckle about that all afternoon.
>
> T8
>

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

[flgliderpilot[_2_]]

Actually, I'd be more concerned with being impaled or having my abdomen shredded by shards of broken fiberglass... for this reason I've always thought old aluminum gliders with very low stall speeds were probably the safest gliders. Just an impression though.

[son_of_flubber]

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:35:45 PM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
>I know of a passenger that broke an ankle in a stalled 2-33 crash that broke the plane in two (behind the wing trailing edge)...

I only have anecdotes wrt survivability of 2-33 crashes, but your anecdote seems pretty favorable. I'd be happy to simply break an ankle and hop away from the front seat of a stalled and crashed glider.

[Dave Nadler]

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:13:10 AM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> I'm sure the "conventional wisdom" gives the nod to Schleicher.

Say what ? The modern Schleicher cockpits are huge
improvements over earlier designs, however:
- no crush zone in front of your feet to absorb energy and
decelerate the glider before your feet do
- a giant hole is cut in the side beam for air ventilation
output, reducing the buckling strength needed here

Again, please look at:

http://www.lange-aviation.com/htm/english/products/antares_20e/safety.html

Hope that helps,
Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"

PS: Some of you will remember I donated a fuselage for crash
testing some decades back, hoping to help improve cockpit safety...

[son_of_flubber]

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 4:11:23 PM UTC-4, flgliderpilot wrote:
> Actually, I'd be more concerned with being impaled or having my abdomen shredded by shards of broken fiberglass...

I understand that the Kevlar in the composite reduces this possibility.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 5:52:38 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:13:10 AM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote: > I'm sure the "conventional wisdom" gives the nod to Schleicher. Say what ? The modern Schleicher cockpits are huge improvements over earlier designs, however: - no crush zone in front of your feet to absorb energy and decelerate the glider before your feet do - a giant hole is cut in the side beam for air ventilation output, reducing the buckling strength needed here Again, please look at: http://www.lange-aviation.com/htm/english/products/antares_20e/safety.html Hope that helps, Best Regards, Dave "YO electric" PS: Some of you will remember I donated a fuselage for crash testing some decades back, hoping to help improve cockpit safety...

A review of the lamination schemes for '24, 27, 28 reflects a designed in forward crush area in the nose with progressively stiffer structure once in the pilot protection zone. I have observed closely both a '24 and a'27 that had significant nose damage and niether had any failure in the area where the air vent is located. Waibel pioneered that aspect that others have wisely emulated.
UH

[James Lee]

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 5:48:16 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:35:45 PM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
>
> >I know of a passenger that broke an ankle in a stalled 2-33 crash that broke the plane in two (behind the wing trailing edge)...
>
>
>
> I only have anecdotes wrt survivability of 2-33 crashes, but your anecdote seems pretty favorable. I'd be happy to simply break an ankle and hop away from the front seat of a stalled and crashed glider.

I was interested by this discussion and looked in the NTSB reports - if I am counting right, in the US, only one person has ever died in the back seat of a 2-33. Six people total have been killed, in five crashes. One of those who died was a suicide - no kidding, he actually left a note. No one has been killed in a 2-33 since 1978.

There have been 226 reported, non-fatal accidents. That makes 231 reported accidents total, with 2.16% being fatal.

[Brad[_2_]]

on the suicide note subject. did that happen in Washington State?

GK



On Thursday, October 24, 2013 5:51:49 PM UTC-7, James Lee wrote:
> On Thursday, October 24, 2013 5:48:16 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:35:45 PM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >I know of a passenger that broke an ankle in a stalled 2-33 crash that broke the plane in two (behind the wing trailing edge)...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I only have anecdotes wrt survivability of 2-33 crashes, but your anecdote seems pretty favorable. I'd be happy to simply break an ankle and hop away from the front seat of a stalled and crashed glider.
>
>
>
> I was interested by this discussion and looked in the NTSB reports - if I am counting right, in the US, only one person has ever died in the back seat of a 2-33. Six people total have been killed, in five crashes. One of those who died was a suicide - no kidding, he actually left a note. No one has been killed in a 2-33 since 1978.
>
>
>
> There have been 226 reported, non-fatal accidents. That makes 231 reported accidents total, with 2.16% being fatal.

[Bob Kuykendall]

Brad, it looks like it was at Calistoga in 1975.

[[email protected]]

So flying a 2-33 actually drove someone to suicide? I can believe that.

[kirk.stant]

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 4:48:16 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

> I only have anecdotes wrt survivability of 2-33 crashes, but your anecdote seems pretty favorable. I'd be happy to simply break an ankle and hop away from the front seat of a stalled and crashed glider.

It wasn't a stall spin, it was a full-stalled hard landing (launched into a dust devil and released early, then full aft stick until impact in the desert - by a commercial pilot giving a ride, no less. Amazingly poor airmanship!).

But without data of other similar events in other types of gliders, all our comments are just opinions. It could be that the 2-33 is the safest method of transportation known to man, but I "personally" doubt it.

I do find it amusing that one of the first defenses raised whenever the 2-33 is discussed is that "it's the safest glider to crash in!". Wow - that sure makes me want to jump in one! No thank you - I prefer gliders that let you avoid a crash - since apparently 2-33s are poor in that respect!

And since the NTSB reports show that you CAN get killed in a 2-33, despite it's low approach speed, spin resistance, and sturdy structure (?!), maybe it's fabled crash safety is just an urban myth.

Prove me wrong; I would love to see data to that effect.

Heck, now I'm going to have to fly our club's 2-33 this weekend just for kicks...you know, living on the edge and all...

Cheers,

Kirk
66

Kirk

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:12:18 -0700, son_of_flubber wrote:

> On Thursday, October 24, 2013 4:11:23 PM UTC-4, flgliderpilot wrote:
>> Actually, I'd be more concerned with being impaled or having my abdomen
>> shredded by shards of broken fiberglass...
>
> I understand that the Kevlar in the composite reduces this possibility.

I have a strong suspicion that carbon would do more damage to you than
glass, though that almost certainly applies to pure carbon or glass
structures.

All the mixed composites I've seen have been approximately 50:50 kevlar/
carbon rather than kevlar/glass, so they're unlikely to shatter.

Data point: a while back people were using 3mm carbon rod as wing joiners
in competition free flight model aircraft and having problems with the
joiners breaking if the model dethermalised onto concrete. A friend found
that when he pultruding his own joiners using a 95:5 mix of carbon:kevlar
tow the joiners remained intact.



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

[Jonathon May]

At 21:14 25 October 2013, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:12:18 -0700, son_of_flubber wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, October 24, 2013 4:11:23 PM UTC-4, flgliderpilot wrote:
>>> Actually, I'd be more concerned with being impaled or having my
abdomen
>>> shredded by shards of broken fiberglass...
>>
>> I understand that the Kevlar in the composite reduces this possibility.
>
>I have a strong suspicion that carbon would do more damage to you than
>glass, though that almost certainly applies to pure carbon or glass
>structures.
>
>All the mixed composites I've seen have been approximately 50:50 kevlar/
>carbon rather than kevlar/glass, so they're unlikely to shatter.
>
>Data point: a while back people were using 3mm carbon rod as wing joiners

>in competition free flight model aircraft and having problems with the
>joiners breaking if the model dethermalised onto concrete. A friend found

>that when he pultruding his own joiners using a 95:5 mix of carbon:kevlar

>tow the joiners remained intact.
>
>
>
>--
>martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>gregorie. | Essex, UK
>org |
>

There are 2 sides to safety
1 is the glider so un handy if you miss handle it ,it will bite
2 if you do get it wrong it will or won't it protect you.

Generally I think most post 1990 gliders have some protection and the
handling is ,if not benign ,is at least predictable
The earlier stuff was more of a compromise particularly the open class
where
it was accepted the handling was evil but look at the glide angle.
And how much crash protection can you expect from a K13 they are a steel
tube frame covered in fabric .
I have forgotten where this thread started by now but if a newly qualified

pilot is reading it and wondering what to buy
Get the newest you can from one of the major builders with a good trailer
Again from a major builder and ignore everything else you have protected
yourself and your investment as best you can.

[Roel Baardman]

Dr. Anthony Segal did a number of drop tests in the past.

I kindly received all his (OSTIV) publications from him.
I think he concluded, for example, that the ASK-13 without the front-wheel transfers the impact on the 'skate' directly onto the spine of the person in the
front seat.

[Dan Marotta]

Kinda like the Piper Cub - it's so slow it can just -barely- kill you...


"kirk.stant" > wrote in message
...
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 4:48:16 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

> I only have anecdotes wrt survivability of 2-33 crashes, but your anecdote
> seems pretty favorable. I'd be happy to simply break an ankle and hop
> away from the front seat of a stalled and crashed glider.

It wasn't a stall spin, it was a full-stalled hard landing (launched into a
dust devil and released early, then full aft stick until impact in the
desert - by a commercial pilot giving a ride, no less. Amazingly poor
airmanship!).

But without data of other similar events in other types of gliders, all our
comments are just opinions. It could be that the 2-33 is the safest method
of transportation known to man, but I "personally" doubt it.

I do find it amusing that one of the first defenses raised whenever the 2-33
is discussed is that "it's the safest glider to crash in!". Wow - that sure
makes me want to jump in one! No thank you - I prefer gliders that let you
avoid a crash - since apparently 2-33s are poor in that respect!

And since the NTSB reports show that you CAN get killed in a 2-33, despite
it's low approach speed, spin resistance, and sturdy structure (?!), maybe
it's fabled crash safety is just an urban myth.

Prove me wrong; I would love to see data to that effect.

Heck, now I'm going to have to fly our club's 2-33 this weekend just for
kicks...you know, living on the edge and all...

Cheers,

Kirk
66

Kirk

[Wallace Berry[_2_]]

In article >,
flgliderpilot > wrote:

> Actually, I'd be more concerned with being impaled or having my abdomen
> shredded by shards of broken fiberglass... for this reason I've always
> thought old aluminum gliders with very low stall speeds were probably the
> safest gliders. Just an impression though.

Aluminum aircraft skins generally shred or tear into very sharp edges in
a crash. Ask anyone who has survived a crash in a Blanik about that!

It seems that 1-26 crashes are often survived. Doubtless, this is, as
you suggest, due to low speed. However, what aluminum glider besides the
1-26 has such a low stall speed?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Wallace Berry[_2_]]

In article >,
"kirk.stant" > wrote:

> On Thursday, October 24, 2013 7:50:13 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
>
> > One of my favorite tidbits on this topic is that the much maligned SGS 2-33
> > has been shown to survive a crash better than most. Part of the reason for
> > that is that a 2-33 will probably be going slower than most when it
> > crashes.
>
> What do you base this conclusion on? I've seen several 2-33s that have been
> crashed and sure wouldn't want to be in one! I know of a passenger that broke
> an ankle in a stalled 2-33 crash that broke the plane in two (behind the wing
> trailing edge), and having spent some time giving rides in the back seat of
> those horrible things, would sure not want to be in one during a hard
> landing!
>


Saw a 2-33 make a very hard landing once. Bent the landing gear up
sideways. The guy in the back seat went away on a backboard.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[kirk.stant]

On Friday, October 25, 2013 12:30:37 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:

> Heck, now I'm going to have to fly our club's 2-33 this weekend just for kicks...you know, living on the edge and all...

Well, I did just that yesterday. Took a tow in our just-annualled (after not flying for over a year) 2-33 (a real nice one, by the way, as 2-33s go) for a late afternoon flight. 3k ft tow, then 30 minutes in weak thermals (out lasting a K-13 and G-103 that launched after me), letting old muscle-memory fly the thing, and ending in a fun, no-spoiler slipped approach to a spot landing, stopping in front of the hangar.

What a piece of junk. No way to trim, either on tow (2-handed push) or thermalling (2-handed pull), having to be pretty much fully cross controlled to slow down enough in a 45 degree bank and work a weak thermal (full aft stick, full top aileron, using the rudder to push the nose around and setup the proper slip angle!), uncomfortable because of the low seatback and back seat rudder pedal housings...at least the visibility from the front is good (cuz it sure isn't from the back!). Everything seems to happen in slow motion - especially roll, since you only have a couple of inches of stick displacement before your leg gets in the way.

Now before you start yelling, I'll admit that I'm not a small guy (although I fit comfortably in my LS6) - and sure a small kid will have tons of room.. That is true. Funny, though, most of our current students are not young kids. They are older, more "mature" guys. Hmmm...

I must say it was fun slipping it down to the ground, because you can really SEE the ground come up and hold that slip to the very last moment...then straighten up, roll the mainwheel on the ground, then when ready let the skid do the work of stopping. Who needs whimpy spoilers or wheel brakes!

Did I have fun? Of course! The thing is a hoot to fly, just like it's fun to drive a really old car - say a 65 Beetle. Is it in any way representative of how you fly a modern glider? Hell no! Is it a good initial trainer? I'll let you CFIGs fight over that, but if my son or daughter suddenly wanted to learn to fly gliders, I would tell them to avoid the 2-33 like the plague until they had their rating, then get checked out in one just to see what it was like in the good old days, before computers, cell phones, or the interwebnet thingy!

Cheers!

Kirk
66

[POPS]

On Friday, October 25, 2013 12:30:37 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:

Heck, now I'm going to have to fly our club's 2-33 this weekend just for kicks...you know, living on the edge and all...

Well, I did just that yesterday. Took a tow in our just-annualled (after not flying for over a year) 2-33 (a real nice one, by the way, as 2-33s go) for a late afternoon flight. 3k ft tow, then 30 minutes in weak thermals (out lasting a K-13 and G-103 that launched after me), letting old muscle-memory fly the thing, and ending in a fun, no-spoiler slipped approach to a spot landing, stopping in front of the hangar.

What a piece of junk. No way to trim, either on tow (2-handed push) or thermalling (2-handed pull), having to be pretty much fully cross controlled to slow down enough in a 45 degree bank and work a weak thermal (full aft stick, full top aileron, using the rudder to push the nose around and setup the proper slip angle!), uncomfortable because of the low seatback and back seat rudder pedal housings...at least the visibility from the front is good (cuz it sure isn't from the back!). Everything seems to happen in slow motion - especially roll, since you only have a couple of inches of stick displacement before your leg gets in the way.

Now before you start yelling, I'll admit that I'm not a small guy (although I fit comfortably in my LS6) - and sure a small kid will have tons of room.. That is true. Funny, though, most of our current students are not young kids. They are older, more "mature" guys. Hmmm...

I must say it was fun slipping it down to the ground, because you can really SEE the ground come up and hold that slip to the very last moment...then straighten up, roll the mainwheel on the ground, then when ready let the skid do the work of stopping. Who needs whimpy spoilers or wheel brakes!

Did I have fun? Of course! The thing is a hoot to fly, just like it's fun to drive a really old car - say a 65 Beetle. Is it in any way representative of how you fly a modern glider? Hell no! Is it a good initial trainer? I'll let you CFIGs fight over that, but if my son or daughter suddenly wanted to learn to fly gliders, I would tell them to avoid the 2-33 like the plague until they had their rating, then get checked out in one just to see what it was like in the good old days, before computers, cell phones, or the interwebnet thingy!

Cheers!

Kirk
66


That is some funny as.. sh...

[Wayne Paul]

Brad,

I believe it was Hailey, Idaho (Sun Valley Soaring). I don't know the
year. I've just heard the stories. It happened before I got involved
in the sport.


On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:05:14 -0700 (PDT), Brad >
wrote:

>on the suicide note subject. did that happen in Washington State?
>

[Brad[_2_]]

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 5:28:20 AM UTC-7, Wayne wrote:
> Brad,
>
>
>
> I believe it was Hailey, Idaho (Sun Valley Soaring). I don't know the
>
> year. I've just heard the stories. It happened before I got involved
>
> in the sport.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:05:14 -0700 (PDT), Brad >
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >on the suicide note subject. did that happen in Washington State?
>
> >

thanks for the reply Wayne and Bob. there was a suicide years ago in Wa State by an instructor. not sure about a note tho. he had a 2-33 but used a shotgun.

he was my primary instructor, learned in the 2-33 and always enjoyed it.

Brad

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Dave Nadler wrote, On 10/24/2013 2:52 PM:
> On Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:13:10 AM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
>> I'm sure the "conventional wisdom" gives the nod to Schleicher.
>
> Say what ? The modern Schleicher cockpits are huge
> improvements over earlier designs, however:
> - no crush zone in front of your feet to absorb energy and
> decelerate the glider before your feet do
> - a giant hole is cut in the side beam for air ventilation
> output, reducing the buckling strength needed here

The air vent is not in structural ducting. All the buckling strength
needed is in the cockpit rails, which are clearly seen when the canopy
is open. They are straight to improve buckling resistance, and very
strong. Take a look at ASW-24, 26, and all later ones. I don't know
about the ASH-25, as I haven't looked at one closely enough.

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