What gliders do you hate?

[[email protected]]

In the spirit of fun, what gliders (makes or specific ones) do you hate, distrust, or are just plain tired of. Have you given so many rides in one model that you never want to see it again? Is there a plane that, despite treating it right, just seemed to want to hurt you? Or is there one out there that is just so ugly that you can't stand it?

My pleas won't work, but let's keep it fun. .... I'll save my example for later in the discussion but I'll give you a hint; it's Polish made.

Terry (XN) in a ASW-27 (which I love)

[Bill D]

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 10:35:11 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> In the spirit of fun, what gliders (makes or specific ones) do you hate, distrust, or are just plain tired of. Have you given so many rides in one model that you never want to see it again? Is there a plane that, despite treating it right, just seemed to want to hurt you? Or is there one out there that is just so ugly that you can't stand it?
>
> My pleas won't work, but let's keep it fun. .... I'll save my example for later in the discussion but I'll give you a hint; it's Polish made.
>
> Terry (XN) in a ASW-27 (which I love)

I can think of two from the early days.

I soloed in a flat-topped ("Double bubble")LK-10A which was a really nice glider but later I flew an unmodified LK-10A which was much less well maintained. It always seemed this glider was trying to kill me. Many improvements had been made to the flat-top which probably made a real difference.

The other was the TG-2 (SGS-2-8). It wasn't particularly nasty like the unmodified LK but the ailerons were unbelievably heavy, the visibility from the rear was virtually nil and the ergonomics were excruciating. The Vne was 72mph IIRC which made glides to the next thermal problematic.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:44:02 PM UTC-6, Bill D wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 10:35:11 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > In the spirit of fun, what gliders (makes or specific ones) do you hate, distrust, or are just plain tired of. Have you given so many rides in one model that you never want to see it again? Is there a plane that, despite treating it right, just seemed to want to hurt you? Or is there one out there that is just so ugly that you can't stand it?
> >
> > My pleas won't work, but let's keep it fun. .... I'll save my example for later in the discussion but I'll give you a hint; it's Polish made.
> >
> > Terry (XN) in a ASW-27 (which I love)
>
> I can think of two from the early days.
>
> I soloed in a flat-topped ("Double bubble")LK-10A which was a really nice glider but later I flew an unmodified LK-10A which was much less well maintained. It always seemed this glider was trying to kill me. Many improvements had been made to the flat-top which probably made a real difference.
>
> The other was the TG-2 (SGS-2-8). It wasn't particularly nasty like the unmodified LK but the ailerons were unbelievably heavy, the visibility from the rear was virtually nil and the ergonomics were excruciating. The Vne was 72mph IIRC which made glides to the next thermal problematic.

Dick Johnson flew 310 miles in a 2-8. An incredible feat for sure.

I can't say i've ever flown a glider that I "hated". I seem to pretty much like all gliders, even Polish ones. Monerai is probably at the top of my dislike list.

[[email protected]]

I'll save my example for later in the discussion but I'll give you a hint; it's Polish made.

Most of the American made ones, would be my hint. Between: 1-26, 2-33, 1-34, Ford Taurus, 1-36... there hardly is anything worth mentioning.
As far far Pw-5 goes: you can only blame FAI for placing such preliminary limits on the world class design.

Happy New Year.

GK

[Vaughn]

On 12/31/2014 12:35 PM, wrote:
> In the spirit of fun, what gliders (makes or specific ones) do you hate, distrust

There are gliders I (greatly) prefer over other gliders, but I can't say
that I hate or distrust any that I have flown. There is one Polish
model that I particularly love, even though it is unlikely to ever win a
contest (of either the beauty or the flying variety).

[C-FFKQ (42)]

I didn't like flying the Blank L-13 because I didn't fit well in it and had to sit very awkwardly for the few flights I was forced to take. It flew week and handled nicely, but I was so uncomfortable that it was an unpleasant experience.

-John

[[email protected]]

> Most of the American made ones, would be my hint. Between: 1-26, 2-33, 1-34, Ford Taurus, 1-36... there hardly is anything worth mentioning.

LOL!! I think I've flown the Ford Taurus.

My relationship to the 1-26 is strange. On one hand, I loved flying them. I've got 4 or 5 thousand miles of x/c in them. Great fun.....On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd ever fly one again with the great options our club has (and in an embarrassment of riches, my own plane.)

[[email protected]]

> My relationship to the 1-26 is strange.

If you don't have what you like, you like what you have. Flown it exactly once, after being forced out of the two seater that was needed during a busy training day. Vividly remember the moment one of the instructors told me I was going to have a ball, while closing my canopy. After releasing and toping a thermal, tried reaching another cloud, going against 10-15kt wind. Boy was I surprised when pushing the stick forward only resulted my altimeter to unwind with the speeds I had only observed before while skydiving... Half way towards the other cloud had to call quits and land. Never had been tempted to have a ball again.

[Peter Smith[_3_]]

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:35:11 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> In the spirit of fun, what gliders (makes or specific ones) do you hate, distrust, or are just plain tired of. Have you given so many rides in one model that you never want to see it again? Is there a plane that, despite treating it right, just seemed to want to hurt you? Or is there one out there that is just so ugly that you can't stand it?
>
> My pleas won't work, but let's keep it fun. .... I'll save my example for later in the discussion but I'll give you a hint; it's Polish made.
>
> Terry (XN) in a ASW-27 (which I love)

I hate racism, sexism, etc., in short, I hate hate. But gliders? What's to hate. It's an awful word. Save the word for really awful things. There are no hateful gliders.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 17:58:13 -0800, Peter Smith wrote:

> I hate racism, sexism, etc., in short, I hate hate. But gliders? What's
> to hate. It's an awful word. Save the word for really awful things.
> There are no hateful gliders.
>
I understand where you're coming from, but some gliders are nicer that
others. For instance, I'll take an SZD Junior any time if the other
choices are a G.102 Astir, ASK-23 or PW-5. I've flown all four and for my
money the Junior is more responsive and generally nicer to fly than any
of the others.


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

[Peter von Tresckow]

Martin Gregorie > wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 17:58:13 -0800, Peter Smith wrote:
>
>> I hate racism, sexism, etc., in short, I hate hate. But gliders? What's
>> to hate. It's an awful word. Save the word for really awful things.
>> There are no hateful gliders.
>>
> I understand where you're coming from, but some gliders are nicer that
> others. For instance, I'll take an SZD Junior any time if the other
> choices are a G.102 Astir, ASK-23 or PW-5. I've flown all four and for my
> money the Junior is more responsive and generally nicer to fly than any
> of the others.
>


I guess I've flown mostly loveable gliders and own a couple of the finest
flying machines that out there (Ka6 and Std Libelle). If I had to pick my
least favorite I'd have to pick on the hapless 2-33. Not really a bad plane
just not as fine as the rest if you can stay out of the back ;-)

Pete

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2015 03:41:27 +0000, Peter von Tresckow wrote:

> Martin Gregorie > wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 17:58:13 -0800, Peter Smith wrote:
>>
>>> I hate racism, sexism, etc., in short, I hate hate. But gliders?
>>> What's to hate. It's an awful word. Save the word for really awful
>>> things. There are no hateful gliders.
>>>
>> I understand where you're coming from, but some gliders are nicer that
>> others. For instance, I'll take an SZD Junior any time if the other
>> choices are a G.102 Astir, ASK-23 or PW-5. I've flown all four and for
>> my money the Junior is more responsive and generally nicer to fly than
>> any of the others.
>>
>>
>
> I guess I've flown mostly loveable gliders and own a couple of the
> finest flying machines that out there (Ka6 and Std Libelle). If I had to
> pick my least favorite I'd have to pick on the hapless 2-33. Not really
> a bad plane just not as fine as the rest if you can stay out of the back
> ;-)
>
I've not flown a Ka-6 (yet), but I own a Std Libelle and love it to bits.

I have had just one flight in a 2-33. It reminded me, from a performance
and handling POV, of a Slingsby T-21 Sedburg, but I thought the front
seat ergonomics were abominable: easily the worst of anything I've flown.


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

[Dan Marotta]

Is hating hate along the same lines as "never say never"?

Anything that flies is OK with me. Aircraft are like lovers. Some are
great, some are terrific, and some are wonderful...


On 12/31/2014 6:58 PM, Peter Smith wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:35:11 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>> In the spirit of fun, what gliders (makes or specific ones) do you hate, distrust, or are just plain tired of. Have you given so many rides in one model that you never want to see it again? Is there a plane that, despite treating it right, just seemed to want to hurt you? Or is there one out there that is just so ugly that you can't stand it?
>>
>> My pleas won't work, but let's keep it fun. .... I'll save my example for later in the discussion but I'll give you a hint; it's Polish made.
>>
>> Terry (XN) in a ASW-27 (which I love)
> I hate racism, sexism, etc., in short, I hate hate. But gliders? What's to hate. It's an awful word. Save the word for really awful things. There are no hateful gliders.

--
Dan Marotta

[Brad[_2_]]

On Thursday, January 1, 2015 9:14:11 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Is hating hate along the same lines as "never say never"?
>
>
>
> Anything that flies is OK with me.* Aircraft are like lovers.* Some
> are great, some are terrific, and some are wonderful...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 12/31/2014 6:58 PM, Peter Smith
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:35:11 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
>
> In the spirit of fun, what gliders (makes or specific ones) do you hate, distrust, or are just plain tired of. Have you given so many rides in one model that you never want to see it again? Is there a plane that, despite treating it right, just seemed to want to hurt you? Or is there one out there that is just so ugly that you can't stand it?
>
> My pleas won't work, but let's keep it fun. .... I'll save my example for later in the discussion but I'll give you a hint; it's Polish made.
>
> Terry (XN) in a ASW-27 (which I love)
>
>
> I hate racism, sexism, etc., in short, I hate hate. But gliders? What's to hate. It's an awful word. Save the word for really awful things. There are no hateful gliders.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dan Marotta

it pains me to see the words "sailplane" and "hate" in the same sentence............can't we just get along?

GK

[kirk.stant]

Hate? None so far, thank goodness! But dislike? Schweizer 2-33 is the obvious answer (for US and Canadian pilots, at least) due to it's atrocious ergonomics, lethargic control response, and general ugliness. But I don't so much dislike it (first glider solo in one, have a lot of time in it giving rides, and still occasionally fly our club's example, just to remind myself how much nicer the other gliders are) as think that its time has past and that it was a poor effort by Schweizer, when you think that the classic Blanik L-13 and Schleicher K-7/13s are contemporaries...

But picking on the 2-33 is too easy, so here are two more:

Schweizer 1-34. Looks like it should be a lot of fun, but it's really pretty pedestrian to fly, with almost the worst ailerons in any Std Class glider. I much prefer the older 1-23 - that's a fun little glider!

Peterson J-4 Javelin. Spoilers for roll control - or lack of it. Identical spoilers for glidepath control, or lack of it. Ugly as sin (but a big comfortable cockpit). A truly imaginative attempt at an inexpensive glider, but the cost cutting really shows. I flew one of the first ones built, and was unimpressed - and the following day another demo flight in it ended in a pattern stall-spin fatal crash - due I believe directly to the weak ailerons and spoilers, combined with a too high pattern, leading to an attempted low 360...

That being said, if any of these were all I had to fly and the day looked good, I wouldn't hesitate to jump in any of them and go fly!

Kirk
66

[Robert Buck]

At 18:26 01 January 2015, kirk.stant wrote:
>Hate? None so far, thank goodness! But dislike? Schweizer 2-
33 is the
>obv=
>ious answer (for US and Canadian pilots, at least) due to it's
atrocious
>er=
>gonomics, lethargic control response, and general ugliness. But
I don't so
>=
>much dislike it (first glider solo in one, have a lot of time in it
giving
>=
>rides, and still occasionally fly our club's example, just to
remind
>myself=
> how much nicer the other gliders are) as think that its time
has past and
>=
>that it was a poor effort by Schweizer, when you think that the
classic
>Bla=
>nik L-13 and Schleicher K-7/13s are contemporaries...
>
>But picking on the 2-33 is too easy, so here are two more:
>
>Schweizer 1-34. Looks like it should be a lot of fun, but it's
really
>pret=
>ty pedestrian to fly, with almost the worst ailerons in any Std
Class
>glide=
>r. I much prefer the older 1-23 - that's a fun little glider!
>
>Peterson J-4 Javelin. Spoilers for roll control - or lack of it.
>Identical=
> spoilers for glidepath control, or lack of it. Ugly as sin (but a
big
>comf=
>ortable cockpit). A truly imaginative attempt at an inexpensive
glider,
>bu=
>t the cost cutting really shows. I flew one of the first ones
built, and
>w=
>as unimpressed - and the following day another demo flight in
it ended in
>a=
> pattern stall-spin fatal crash - due I believe directly to the
weak
>ailero=
>ns and spoilers, combined with a too high pattern, leading to
an attempted
>=
>low 360...
>
>That being said, if any of these were all I had to fly and the
day looked
>g=
>ood, I wouldn't hesitate to jump in any of them and go fly!
>
>Kirk
>66

If Gliders are like Beer, it might go like this: After another
cracking soaring day, during the 1969 Nationals at Marfa, the
Glasflugel test pilot and I stood together on the old airbase
ramp, drinking our cans of Coors beer. The lousy capture of
each other's language led mostly to staring at the waning cu's of
the deep blue, West Texas sky. Yet savoring the watery taste of
these versions of German staple, I had to ask...but carefully:
"Herr Muller...How Do You Like Coors Beer?" He responded with
slow and diplomatic word: "Any Beer Is Better Than No Beer."
Smiling, we starred at the sky some more.
Rob RB
>

[John Firth[_4_]]

At 19:33 01 January 2015, Robert Buck wrote:
>At 18:26 01 January 2015, kirk.stant wrote:
>>Hate? None so far, thank goodness! But dislike? Schweizer 2-
>33 is the
>>obv=
>>ious answer (for US and Canadian pilots, at least) due to it's
>atrocious
>>er=
>>gonomics, lethargic control response, and general ugliness. But
>I don't so
>>=
>>much dislike it (first glider solo in one, have a lot of time in it
>giving
>>=
>>rides, and still occasionally fly our club's example, just to
>remind
>>myself=
>> how much nicer the other gliders are) as think that its time
>has past and
>>=
>>that it was a poor effort by Schweizer, when you think that the
>classic
>>Bla=
>>nik L-13 and Schleicher K-7/13s are contemporaries...
>>
>>But picking on the 2-33 is too easy, so here are two more:
>>
>>Schweizer 1-34. Looks like it should be a lot of fun, but it's
>really
>>pret=
>>ty pedestrian to fly, with almost the worst ailerons in any Std
>Class
>>glide=
>>r. I much prefer the older 1-23 - that's a fun little glider!
>>
>>Peterson J-4 Javelin. Spoilers for roll control - or lack of it.
>>Identical=
>> spoilers for glidepath control, or lack of it. Ugly as sin (but a
>big
>>comf=
>>ortable cockpit). A truly imaginative attempt at an inexpensive
>glider,
>>bu=
>>t the cost cutting really shows. I flew one of the first ones
>built, and
>>w=
>>as unimpressed - and the following day another demo flight in
>it ended in
>>a=
>> pattern stall-spin fatal crash - due I believe directly to the
>weak
>>ailero=
>>ns and spoilers, combined with a too high pattern, leading to
>an attempted
>>=
>>low 360...
>>
>>That being said, if any of these were all I had to fly and the
>day looked
>>g=
>>ood, I wouldn't hesitate to jump in any of them and go fly!
>>
>>Kirk
>>66
>
>If Gliders are like Beer, it might go like this: After another
>cracking soaring day, during the 1969 Nationals at Marfa, the
>Glasflugel test pilot and I stood together on the old airbase
>ramp, drinking our cans of Coors beer. The lousy capture of
>each other's language led mostly to staring at the waning cu's of
>the deep blue, West Texas sky. Yet savoring the watery taste of
>these versions of German staple, I had to ask...but carefully:
>"Herr Muller...How Do You Like Coors Beer?" He responded with
>slow and diplomatic word: "Any Beer Is Better Than No Beer."
>Smiling, we starred at the sky some more.
>Rob RB
>
>I misguidedly posted under a changed header so here goes again.

Nobody picked the 2-22 ; maybe you are all too young, though there a re a
few still around. Goerge Moffatt
commented in Soaring mag that the 2-33 was a big improvement over the
2-22, which gives gredence to my
noting it as the worst.

Among the 50 plus types I have flown, the worst are the 2-22 , the
Pratt-Read and probably the Tutor in which
I soloed plus the Kirby Kite II; hard to remember from 55 years ago.
Designs have improved so much that it is hard to rate the most pleasant
types, but the ASW 20, the Kestrel 19, the
Nimbus 2C and the PIk s D and E all are responsive to fly and have
satisfying performance.
I have not flown a really modern glider but the Nimbus 3T is great when
you just want to go straight.

A greybeard's recollections.

John F
>
>

[[email protected]]

Again... I intended this to be in this spirit of fun. "Hate" is used loose and light here. Like guys sitting around drinking and saying "You know what I hate? Being rejected by the cute waitress... and this watery beer. I think I'll have another!"

(So, read everything below in a playful voice. It's the new year. It's cold.. I'm dreaming of flying... and looking for laughs.)

Trying again, what gliders do you dislike, but not so much that you use a forbidden word as "hate" to describe?

Me.... The plane I dislike most is hard to sit in, has a special trailer because the designer couldn't stand to stick to convention, ground loops like it was made for it, has a fuselage you can twist by hand, and straight-out-of-the-factory gives the pilot a 30% chance of gear collapse on every landing.

Using hate to describe this glider would be wrong (of course) but surely I can admit that I dislike it?

[Tango Eight]

On Thursday, January 1, 2015 6:36:17 PM UTC-5, wrote:

> Using hate to describe this glider would be wrong (of course) but surely I can admit that I dislike it?

The amount of risk taking that went into that particular design is something that ought to be *admired*. Would I buy one? Not a chance. Wrong sailplane for me (and just about everyone else). But I love the gutsy attitude and I'd love to fly that glider on a really strong day (with a really strong wing runner).

Evan Ludeman / T8

[James Hamilton[_2_]]

At 20:28 01 January 2015, John Firth wrote:
>At 19:33 01 January 2015, Robert Buck wrote:
>>At 18:26 01 January 2015, kirk.stant wrote:
>>>Hate? None so far, thank goodness! But dislike? Schweizer 2-
>>33 is the
>>>obv=
>>>ious answer (for US and Canadian pilots, at least) due to it's
>>atrocious
>>>er=
>>>gonomics, lethargic control response, and general ugliness. But
>>I don't so
>>>=
>>>much dislike it (first glider solo in one, have a lot of time in it
>>giving
>>>=
>>>rides, and still occasionally fly our club's example, just to
>>remind
>>>myself=
>>> how much nicer the other gliders are) as think that its time
>>has past and
>>>=
>>>that it was a poor effort by Schweizer, when you think that the
>>classic
>>>Bla=
>>>nik L-13 and Schleicher K-7/13s are contemporaries...
>>>
>>>But picking on the 2-33 is too easy, so here are two more:
>>>
>>>Schweizer 1-34. Looks like it should be a lot of fun, but it's
>>really
>>>pret=
>>>ty pedestrian to fly, with almost the worst ailerons in any Std
>>Class
>>>glide=
>>>r. I much prefer the older 1-23 - that's a fun little glider!
>>>
>>>Peterson J-4 Javelin. Spoilers for roll control - or lack of it.
>>>Identical=
>>> spoilers for glidepath control, or lack of it. Ugly as sin (but a
>>big
>>>comf=
>>>ortable cockpit). A truly imaginative attempt at an inexpensive
>>glider,
>>>bu=
>>>t the cost cutting really shows. I flew one of the first ones
>>built, and
>>>w=
>>>as unimpressed - and the following day another demo flight in
>>it ended in
>>>a=
>>> pattern stall-spin fatal crash - due I believe directly to the
>>weak
>>>ailero=
>>>ns and spoilers, combined with a too high pattern, leading to
>>an attempted
>>>=
>>>low 360...
>>>
>>>That being said, if any of these were all I had to fly and the
>>day looked
>>>g=
>>>ood, I wouldn't hesitate to jump in any of them and go fly!
>>>
>>>Kirk
>>>66
>>
>>If Gliders are like Beer, it might go like this: After another
>>cracking soaring day, during the 1969 Nationals at Marfa, the
>>Glasflugel test pilot and I stood together on the old airbase
>>ramp, drinking our cans of Coors beer. The lousy capture of
>>each other's language led mostly to staring at the waning cu's of
>>the deep blue, West Texas sky. Yet savoring the watery taste of
>>these versions of German staple, I had to ask...but carefully:
>>"Herr Muller...How Do You Like Coors Beer?" He responded with
>>slow and diplomatic word: "Any Beer Is Better Than No Beer."
>>Smiling, we starred at the sky some more.
>>Rob RB
>>
>>I misguidedly posted under a changed header so here goes again.
>
>Nobody picked the 2-22 ; maybe you are all too young, though there a re
>few still around. Goerge Moffatt
>commented in Soaring mag that the 2-33 was a big improvement over th
>2-22, which gives gredence to my
>noting it as the worst.
>
> Among the 50 plus types I have flown, the worst are the 2-22 , th
>Pratt-Read and probably the Tutor in which
>I soloed plus the Kirby Kite II; hard to remember from 55 years ago.
>Designs have improved so much that it is hard to rate the most pleasan
>types, but the ASW 20, the Kestrel 19, the
>Nimbus 2C and the PIk s D and E all are responsive to fly and hav
>satisfying performance.
>I have not flown a really modern glider but the Nimbus 3T is great whe
>you just want to go straight.
>
>A greybeard's recollections.
>
>John F
>>
>>
>
>I have to agree with Kirk, the Peterson J-4 Javelin. I flew one of the
first ones at Bermuda High Soaring in 1974. The handling was awful and I
still think it's one of the ugliest gliders ever. I've seen a lot of
gliders and flown more than 60 different ones.

JLH

[lynn]

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 11:35:11 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> In the spirit of fun, what gliders (makes or specific ones) do you hate, distrust, or are just plain tired of. Have you given so many rides in one model that you never want to see it again? Is there a plane that, despite treating it right, just seemed to want to hurt you? Or is there one out there that is just so ugly that you can't stand it?
>
> My pleas won't work, but let's keep it fun. .... I'll save my example for later in the discussion but I'll give you a hint; it's Polish made.
>
> Terry (XN) in a ASW-27 (which I love)
Blanik L-13 due to uncomfortable seating with parachute and poor visibility (compared to ASK-13 in which I trained) and Laister LP-49 which was an exceedingly poor replacement for a club Ka-6e.

[Cookie]

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:35:11 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Gliders are like sex and pizza....


When it's good...it's really good....

When it's not so good....it's still good....


Cookie






> In the spirit of fun, what gliders (makes or specific ones) do you hate, distrust, or are just plain tired of. Have you given so many rides in one model that you never want to see it again? Is there a plane that, despite treating it right, just seemed to want to hurt you? Or is there one out there that is just so ugly that you can't stand it?
>
> My pleas won't work, but let's keep it fun. .... I'll save my example for later in the discussion but I'll give you a hint; it's Polish made.
>
> Terry (XN) in a ASW-27 (which I love)

[Cookie]

Blanik? I must be a masochist...I flew one for 8-1/2 hours straight one day...

I could still walk after landing....

I also got a NJ state 2 place distance record in a Blanik...not very far...138 miles...but, it was raining during the whole flight! (SE ridge)....

So Blanik is not so bad...

Cookie




On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:35:11 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> In the spirit of fun, what gliders (makes or specific ones) do you hate, distrust, or are just plain tired of. Have you given so many rides in one model that you never want to see it again? Is there a plane that, despite treating it right, just seemed to want to hurt you? Or is there one out there that is just so ugly that you can't stand it?
>
> My pleas won't work, but let's keep it fun. .... I'll save my example for later in the discussion but I'll give you a hint; it's Polish made.
>
> Terry (XN) in a ASW-27 (which I love)

[Cookie]

SGS-1-34???

Don't pick on the 1-34! Our club has had two, just about forever...

Great club gliders! Cheap to buy...nice to fly...leave 'em outside ready to go at any time...

You can run the ridge comfortably at 100 MPH...

Those airbrakes are fantastic!

The "R" version is real quiet..

The OLC handicap makes it a real contender...With a good pilot, it can win at sports class contests too..

Did my Gold Badge (14,000' wave in NJ!!)and two Diamonds all in 1-34...

Cookie









> In the spirit of fun, what gliders (makes or specific ones) do you hate, distrust, or are just plain tired of. Have you given so many rides in one model that you never want to see it again? Is there a plane that, despite treating it right, just seemed to want to hurt you? Or is there one out there that is just so ugly that you can't stand it?
>
> My pleas won't work, but let's keep it fun. .... I'll save my example for later in the discussion but I'll give you a hint; it's Polish made.
>
> Terry (XN) in a ASW-27 (which I love)

[kirk.stant]

On Friday, January 2, 2015 7:08:29 AM UTC-6, Cookie wrote:
> SGS-1-34???
>
> Don't pick on the 1-34! Our club has had two, just about forever...
>
> Great club gliders! Cheap to buy...nice to fly...leave 'em outside ready to go at any time...
>
> You can run the ridge comfortably at 100 MPH...
>
> Those airbrakes are fantastic!
>
> The "R" version is real quiet..
>
> The OLC handicap makes it a real contender...With a good pilot, it can win at sports class contests too..
>
> Did my Gold Badge (14,000' wave in NJ!!)and two Diamonds all in 1-34...
>
> Cookie

Cookie, I did my first XC in a 1-34 out in Arizona, chasing the hotshots in their fancy glass; and occasionally fly one in our club now - but I admit I'm an "aileron man" and just can't get past how poor they are on the 1-34. I agree that the dive brakes are a hoot!

Just to avoid being tagged as a Schweizer-basher - I think the 2-32 is one of the finest big gliders ever built, love the 1-26 (especially with the sports canopy on a hot summer day), and enjoyed the 1-23 a lot. But the 2-22 (with it's simulated spoilers) and the 2-33 (you have to lift your leg off the rudder pedal to get full aileron travel? YGBSM!), not so much.

Kirk

[Peter Purdie[_3_]]

Of around 100 glider types flown (from Slingsby Grasshopper
Primary to EB28) the only 2 I would decline to fly again are
the Reinhard Cumulus (a sort of Grunau Baby with steel-tube
fuselage, and the Gull 1 that did the first soaring flight across
the English Channel.

Both had handling I would categorise as unpleasant.

Otherwise there is just as much fun to be had on a nice (or
challenging) day in a Ka6 as romping for 100k plus without
circling in a Nimbus 4.

[[email protected]]

Terry, maybe I've already missed it here, but are your comments referring to the Diana?

[Dan Marotta]

Damn, Brother! I'd *HATE* that thing! <chuckle, 'cuz folks that gag on
words need serious self evaluation, and I like my beer and waitresses to
have "body">


On 1/1/2015 4:36 PM, wrote:
> Again... I intended this to be in this spirit of fun. "Hate" is used loose and light here. Like guys sitting around drinking and saying "You know what I hate? Being rejected by the cute waitress... and this watery beer. I think I'll have another!"
>
> (So, read everything below in a playful voice. It's the new year. It's cold. I'm dreaming of flying... and looking for laughs.)
>
> Trying again, what gliders do you dislike, but not so much that you use a forbidden word as "hate" to describe?
>
> Me.... The plane I dislike most is hard to sit in, has a special trailer because the designer couldn't stand to stick to convention, ground loops like it was made for it, has a fuselage you can twist by hand, and straight-out-of-the-factory gives the pilot a 30% chance of gear collapse on every landing.
>
> Using hate to describe this glider would be wrong (of course) but surely I can admit that I dislike it?
>
>

--
Dan Marotta

[Ian Kennedy]

Without a doubt it has to be the IS29 Club.
Unflapped version of the Lark, it had vicious behavior
at the stall, controls that were too light, and unpredictable spinning
characteristics.
Dont think it ever got a UK C of A.
A thoroughly nasty machine to fly.

[Bob Gibbons[_2_]]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2015 20:28:01 +0000, John Firth >
wrote:

>> text deleted
>
>Nobody picked the 2-22 ; maybe you are all too young, though there a re a
>few still around. Goerge Moffatt
>commented in Soaring mag that the 2-33 was a big improvement over the
>2-22, which gives gredence to my
>noting it as the worst.
>
> Among the 50 plus types I have flown, the worst are the 2-22 , the
>Pratt-Read and probably the Tutor in which I soloed
>> text deleted
>
>John F

For what its worth...
In the 70's, I flew as both a student, and later a CFI, in an auto-tow
only operation that had both a 2-22 and 2-33.
As an instructor I actually preferred the 2-22 to the 2-33, largely
due to the weaker airbrakes on the '22. This factor magnified the
importance of proper circuit planning.

Bob

[Tony[_5_]]

I prefer the roll rate of the 2-22. Sink rate, not so much.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 1/1/2015 11:26 AM, kirk.stant wrote:
> Hate? None so far, thank goodness! But dislike?
<Snip...>
>
> Schweizer 1-34. Looks like it should be a lot of fun, but it's really
> pretty pedestrian to fly, with almost the worst ailerons in any Std Class
> glider.

Put me in the "I hate hate" class. :)

And perhaps proving everything is relative - and allowing for the fact a 1-34
is the *only* standard class glider I've ever flown - I had two flights in one
way back when, when I owned an HP-14 and had only flown 2 other single seat
types. One of the memorable things to me about the 1-34 was its snappy aileron
control compared to the HP, almost as quick in roll as a 1-26, I thought.
While I was perfectly happy with my HP, roll responsiveness was definitely not
its strong suit! With home-field landing patterns constrained in size by the
glider pattern being inside the power pattern (parallel runways), I flew
circling "US Navy" patterns in my HP by way of compensating for its leisurely
role rate and high aileron forces. I thought the 1-34 has sports car handling
in comparison.

There might BE something to this "YMMV Theory"!

Bob W.

[WB]

For me, the most miserable glider I've ever flown is the Schweizer 1-36. Flew a nearly brand new one, thought it horrible. The pitch trim system was the main problem. It was much too powerful and made the stick very heavy. I chalked it up to being new and tight. Flew a different one thinking it had to be better. Nope just as horrible as the first. A few year later, found the mangled remains of that first 1-36 in a repair shop a long way from where I flew it.

Someone mentioned the TG-2. Flew one of those on a 60 mile ferry tow. If you think the 72 mph redline made cross country soaring tough, what about flying the thing for 60 miles on tow behind a towplane that could not tow that slow? I was never so happy to get to a reasonable bail-out altitude. The split ailerons on this one had been covered as single units and would bind a bit, resulting in limited movement and poor roll control. No rudder pedal adjustments and a fixed seat made for a very cramped seating position. However, after reaching the destination at 5000 agl, I found that the thing would spin and recover very well due to that huge rudder.

I think Kirk mentioned the Schweizer 1-23. The D models and later are probably the best gliders Schweizer ever built in serial production. One of my favorite flights of all time was in a 1-23D. Climbed the upwind side of a tall cu from it's 5000' base all the way to 8000' agl, then flew the cloud street like a ridge for an hour. Also had my first outlanding in a 1-23H15.

[Cookie]

sgs 1-36....

simple solution which we used to do...

You just bring a big rubber band....wrap it around the stick and the stick trim...thus disengaging the trim spring...it now flies like a 1-26...light on the elevator!

Cockpit is roomy and seat is way comfortable....performance way better than 1-26...nice glider...


Cookie





On Friday, January 2, 2015 11:52:05 PM UTC-5, WB wrote:
> For me, the most miserable glider I've ever flown is the Schweizer 1-36. Flew a nearly brand new one, thought it horrible. The pitch trim system was the main problem. It was much too powerful and made the stick very heavy. I chalked it up to being new and tight. Flew a different one thinking it had to be better. Nope just as horrible as the first. A few year later, found the mangled remains of that first 1-36 in a repair shop a long way from where I flew it.
>
> Someone mentioned the TG-2. Flew one of those on a 60 mile ferry tow. If you think the 72 mph redline made cross country soaring tough, what about flying the thing for 60 miles on tow behind a towplane that could not tow that slow? I was never so happy to get to a reasonable bail-out altitude. The split ailerons on this one had been covered as single units and would bind a bit, resulting in limited movement and poor roll control. No rudder pedal adjustments and a fixed seat made for a very cramped seating position. However, after reaching the destination at 5000 agl, I found that the thing would spin and recover very well due to that huge rudder.
>
> I think Kirk mentioned the Schweizer 1-23. The D models and later are probably the best gliders Schweizer ever built in serial production. One of my favorite flights of all time was in a 1-23D. Climbed the upwind side of a tall cu from it's 5000' base all the way to 8000' agl, then flew the cloud street like a ridge for an hour. Also had my first outlanding in a 1-23H15.

[Bill D]

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 3:56:05 AM UTC-7, Cookie wrote:
> sgs 1-36....
>
> simple solution which we used to do...
>
> You just bring a big rubber band....wrap it around the stick and the stick trim...thus disengaging the trim spring...it now flies like a 1-26...light on the elevator!
>
> Cockpit is roomy and seat is way comfortable....performance way better than 1-26...nice glider...
>
>
> Cookie
>
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 2, 2015 11:52:05 PM UTC-5, WB wrote:
> > For me, the most miserable glider I've ever flown is the Schweizer 1-36.. Flew a nearly brand new one, thought it horrible. The pitch trim system was the main problem. It was much too powerful and made the stick very heavy.. I chalked it up to being new and tight. Flew a different one thinking it had to be better. Nope just as horrible as the first. A few year later, found the mangled remains of that first 1-36 in a repair shop a long way from where I flew it.
> >
> > Someone mentioned the TG-2. Flew one of those on a 60 mile ferry tow. If you think the 72 mph redline made cross country soaring tough, what about flying the thing for 60 miles on tow behind a towplane that could not tow that slow? I was never so happy to get to a reasonable bail-out altitude. The split ailerons on this one had been covered as single units and would bind a bit, resulting in limited movement and poor roll control. No rudder pedal adjustments and a fixed seat made for a very cramped seating position. However, after reaching the destination at 5000 agl, I found that the thing would spin and recover very well due to that huge rudder.
> >
> > I think Kirk mentioned the Schweizer 1-23. The D models and later are probably the best gliders Schweizer ever built in serial production. One of my favorite flights of all time was in a 1-23D. Climbed the upwind side of a tall cu from it's 5000' base all the way to 8000' agl, then flew the cloud street like a ridge for an hour. Also had my first outlanding in a 1-23H15.

A precise, powerful trimming system makes an enormous difference in any aircraft. Schweizer proved they could do it with the 2-32. That they then failed to do so with subsequent models is puzzling.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 10:35:11 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> In the spirit of fun, what gliders (makes or specific ones) do you hate, distrust, or are just plain tired of. Have you given so many rides in one model that you never want to see it again? Is there a plane that, despite treating it right, just seemed to want to hurt you? Or is there one out there that is just so ugly that you can't stand it?
>
> My pleas won't work, but let's keep it fun. .... I'll save my example for later in the discussion but I'll give you a hint; it's Polish made.
>
> Terry (XN) in a ASW-27 (which I love)

Though not fond of either the Schleicher K-4 or Schweizer 2-33, I did get my UK winch endorsement in a K-4 at Anglia GC back in 1978. US winch endorsement was in an L-23, much nicer.

Frank Whiteley

[Frank Whiteley]

On Friday, January 2, 2015 9:52:05 PM UTC-7, WB wrote:
> For me, the most miserable glider I've ever flown is the Schweizer 1-36. Flew a nearly brand new one, thought it horrible. The pitch trim system was the main problem. It was much too powerful and made the stick very heavy. I chalked it up to being new and tight. Flew a different one thinking it had to be better. Nope just as horrible as the first. A few year later, found the mangled remains of that first 1-36 in a repair shop a long way from where I flew it.
>
> Someone mentioned the TG-2. Flew one of those on a 60 mile ferry tow. If you think the 72 mph redline made cross country soaring tough, what about flying the thing for 60 miles on tow behind a towplane that could not tow that slow? I was never so happy to get to a reasonable bail-out altitude. The split ailerons on this one had been covered as single units and would bind a bit, resulting in limited movement and poor roll control. No rudder pedal adjustments and a fixed seat made for a very cramped seating position. However, after reaching the destination at 5000 agl, I found that the thing would spin and recover very well due to that huge rudder.
>
> I think Kirk mentioned the Schweizer 1-23. The D models and later are probably the best gliders Schweizer ever built in serial production. One of my favorite flights of all time was in a 1-23D. Climbed the upwind side of a tall cu from it's 5000' base all the way to 8000' agl, then flew the cloud street like a ridge for an hour. Also had my first outlanding in a 1-23H15.

After looking at the rigging and construction of the root assembly of 1-36, I decided I'd rather not fly one. Those few that did fly the one we had for a few years always seemed to be on the verge of PIO's on take off. AFAIK, only one instructor ever flew it. Perhaps what you describe resulted in a tendency to over control. I always though it looked twitchy.

Frank Whiteley

[Cookie]

Twitchy?? Or "responsive"....

Once you get used to it, and keep a steady hand...it flies great!

I think the wing rood is the same as the 1-34 (basically 1-36 has shorter 1-34 wings...)....Never heard of s structural problem with either 34 or 36....


Cookie






> After looking at the rigging and construction of the root assembly of 1-36, I decided I'd rather not fly one. Those few that did fly the one we had for a few years always seemed to be on the verge of PIO's on take off. AFAIK, only one instructor ever flew it. Perhaps what you describe resulted in a tendency to over control. I always though it looked twitchy.
>
> Frank Whiteley

[Cookie]

The 2-32 trim is a nice set up...it is an anti servo tab....aerodynamic trim system...the more you move the stick, the harder it fights back...sort of variable ratio.....

A full flying stabilizer pretty much requires this sort of trim...

I find the trim "wheel" a bit awkward though...

My airplane transition pilots always seemed to like the 2-32 because it flies more like an airplane than it does like a glider.

Many planes and gliders don't need any trim system at all....

We seldom even touch the trim when flying a 1-26 ...My small homebuilt airplanes had no need for trim either...

Cookie




> A precise, powerful trimming system makes an enormous difference in any aircraft. Schweizer proved they could do it with the 2-32. That they then failed to do so with subsequent models is puzzling.

[Cookie]

"root" not "rood"......



On Saturday, January 3, 2015 11:58:10 AM UTC-5, Cookie wrote:
> Twitchy?? Or "responsive"....
>
> Once you get used to it, and keep a steady hand...it flies great!
>
> I think the wing rood is the same as the 1-34 (basically 1-36 has shorter 1-34 wings...)....Never heard of s structural problem with either 34 or 36....
>
>
> Cookie
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > After looking at the rigging and construction of the root assembly of 1-36, I decided I'd rather not fly one. Those few that did fly the one we had for a few years always seemed to be on the verge of PIO's on take off. AFAIK, only one instructor ever flew it. Perhaps what you describe resulted in a tendency to over control. I always though it looked twitchy.
> >
> > Frank Whiteley

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 11:50:01 AM UTC-5, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> On Friday, January 2, 2015 9:52:05 PM UTC-7, WB wrote:
> > For me, the most miserable glider I've ever flown is the Schweizer 1-36.. Flew a nearly brand new one, thought it horrible. The pitch trim system was the main problem. It was much too powerful and made the stick very heavy.. I chalked it up to being new and tight. Flew a different one thinking it had to be better. Nope just as horrible as the first. A few year later, found the mangled remains of that first 1-36 in a repair shop a long way from where I flew it.
> >
> > Someone mentioned the TG-2. Flew one of those on a 60 mile ferry tow. If you think the 72 mph redline made cross country soaring tough, what about flying the thing for 60 miles on tow behind a towplane that could not tow that slow? I was never so happy to get to a reasonable bail-out altitude. The split ailerons on this one had been covered as single units and would bind a bit, resulting in limited movement and poor roll control. No rudder pedal adjustments and a fixed seat made for a very cramped seating position. However, after reaching the destination at 5000 agl, I found that the thing would spin and recover very well due to that huge rudder.
> >
> > I think Kirk mentioned the Schweizer 1-23. The D models and later are probably the best gliders Schweizer ever built in serial production. One of my favorite flights of all time was in a 1-23D. Climbed the upwind side of a tall cu from it's 5000' base all the way to 8000' agl, then flew the cloud street like a ridge for an hour. Also had my first outlanding in a 1-23H15.
>
> After looking at the rigging and construction of the root assembly of 1-36, I decided I'd rather not fly one. Those few that did fly the one we had for a few years always seemed to be on the verge of PIO's on take off. AFAIK, only one instructor ever flew it. Perhaps what you describe resulted in a tendency to over control. I always though it looked twitchy.
>
> Frank Whiteley

I would be curious as to what about the construction of the 1-36 root concerned you.
My experience is that the pitch sensitivity of the 1-36 is not any poorer than that of a 1-26. That said, I do prefer the 1-34 over the 1-36.
FWIW
UH

[[email protected]]

I've never flown a 1-36. In all the places I've flown, I have only seen 5 that I remember. My samples don't speak well for the poor 1-36. 3 were hanger queens and hadn't seen the air in years. And....I'm not exaggerating here.... the two I saw fly...well... both ended in crashes (just minor thanks goodness.)

[[email protected]]

There are several gliders that I like quite a lot (maybe even love) that have things I don't like at all.

Grob 103 (many fond memories) You have to file an application to apply rudder before a turn. I have seen only one passenger who wasn't flummoxed by it.

LS-4 (fun plane) The gear on the left? I understand that it kinda works as a gear up protector, but since I have seen that protection "defeated" (not by me, cross fingers) how 'bout we put it on the right side? (where God intended it! :) just kidding)

304S shark: This is a super awesome plane which make the trim lever that is in the wrong place and moves the wrong direction stand out so much.

2-33: I loved this as a kid. But solo with a light-ish pilot the thing would bang the tail at the start of every tow. As an adult, the tiny back seat can be back ache in the making.

ASW-20: Could the wings be any heavier?

My beloved ASW-27: Its hard to say a negative word about this beauty. Maybe it's just mine, but the trim system requires two hands to actually adjust. Minor... but the damn thing was designed to work one handed.

[Kerry Kirby]

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 2:04:54 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> I've never flown a 1-36. In all the places I've flown, I have only seen 5 that I remember. My samples don't speak well for the poor 1-36. 3 were hanger queens and hadn't seen the air in years. And....I'm not exaggerating here... the two I saw fly...well... both ended in crashes (just minor thanks goodness.)


I went for a passenger flight in a 1-36 once. As whatever inputs I made did not seem to do anything i logged it as a passenger flight! It would make a great Drone. Better still a target drone.

Kerry

[Frank Whiteley]

What WB said about the trim might give the same appearance if a pilot were giving it extra effort.

From my limited observations and help rigging and derigging Schweizer single place gliders, I believe there is more butt-end structure where the 1-26's and 1-34's spar carry-through meets than on a 1-36, where if I recall correctly, the carry-throughs don't meet. Could be wrong though, it's been a long time. I was sensitive to this as a 1-36 near Colorado Springs returned from a flight with more dihedral than it departed with and another wound up in a BBQ pit in Boulder when a wing folded up. Not saying both weren't abused in flight, but the second ended up in a lengthy, ultimately unsuccessful, litigation with the operator's estate. Am also aware of at least a 1-26 where the wing folded up also, with better results. But never had access to a 1-26D or E to fly.

Frank Whiteley

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 9:58:10 AM UTC-7, Cookie wrote:
> Twitchy?? Or "responsive"....
>
> Once you get used to it, and keep a steady hand...it flies great!
>
> I think the wing rood is the same as the 1-34 (basically 1-36 has shorter 1-34 wings...)....Never heard of s structural problem with either 34 or 36....
>
>
> Cookie
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > After looking at the rigging and construction of the root assembly of 1-36, I decided I'd rather not fly one. Those few that did fly the one we had for a few years always seemed to be on the verge of PIO's on take off. AFAIK, only one instructor ever flew it. Perhaps what you describe resulted in a tendency to over control. I always though it looked twitchy.
> >
> > Frank Whiteley

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 4:06:23 PM UTC-5, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> What WB said about the trim might give the same appearance if a pilot were giving it extra effort.
>
> From my limited observations and help rigging and derigging Schweizer single place gliders, I believe there is more butt-end structure where the 1-26's and 1-34's spar carry-through meets than on a 1-36, where if I recall correctly, the carry-throughs don't meet. Could be wrong though, it's been a long time. I was sensitive to this as a 1-36 near Colorado Springs returned from a flight with more dihedral than it departed with and another wound up in a BBQ pit in Boulder when a wing folded up. Not saying both weren't abused in flight, but the second ended up in a lengthy, ultimately unsuccessful, litigation with the operator's estate. Am also aware of at least a 1-26 where the wing folded up also, with better results. But never had access to a 1-26D or E to fly.
>
> Frank Whiteley

The 1-36 that got bent by the idiot in Boulder lives at our field and flies all the time. It is a testament to Ernie Schweizer's use of multiple redundant members in the spar. Nothing broke. It just yielded and stayed together to save the pilot's life. Irv Prue did the repair and told me he really liked the engineering.
UH
>
>

[JS]

I don't like to see gliders that have not been maintained well.
But that's hardly the glider's fault.
Jim

[WB]

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 10:58:10 AM UTC-6, Cookie wrote:
> Twitchy?? Or "responsive"....
>
> Once you get used to it, and keep a steady hand...it flies great!
>
> I think the wing rood is the same as the 1-34 (basically 1-36 has shorter 1-34 wings...)....Never heard of s structural problem with either 34 or 36....
>
>
> Cookie

There's been a couple of 1-34's come apart in flight due to botched aerobatics and I have seen a couple of other 1-34's that were "loose" all over due to having been overstressed by owners who frequently did aerobatics. What is it about 1-34's that encouraged aerobatic flight? Maybe it's my unschooled eyes, but the 1-34 just does not look an aerobatic mount to me.

Don't know about any 1-36's coming apart. Has to be a tough little sucker to have survived the infamous "barograph notching incident" in CO that more than doubled the dihedral.

[WB]

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 11:35:11 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> In the spirit of fun, what gliders (makes or specific ones) do you hate, distrust, or are just plain tired of. Have you given so many rides in one model that you never want to see it again? Is there a plane that, despite treating it right, just seemed to want to hurt you? Or is there one out there that is just so ugly that you can't stand it?
>
> My pleas won't work, but let's keep it fun. .... I'll save my example for later in the discussion but I'll give you a hint; it's Polish made.
>
> Terry (XN) in a ASW-27 (which I love)

I've had two H301 Libelles with over 20 years of 301 Libelle flying. I love the things (and the 201's). However, I have to say that the 301 is an acquired taste. To be honest it can be a bit of chore to fly. Fairly pitchy, not much rudder, wallows around at low speed (but still climbs), and has very poor dive brakes. The squirrely handling at low speeds does not engender confidence during low saves and in the landing pattern. Kinda gives the feeling that one might get bitten if not careful. Might be one reason there have been few Libelles spin in.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 2:54:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 4:06:23 PM UTC-5, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> > What WB said about the trim might give the same appearance if a pilot were giving it extra effort.
> >
> > From my limited observations and help rigging and derigging Schweizer single place gliders, I believe there is more butt-end structure where the 1-26's and 1-34's spar carry-through meets than on a 1-36, where if I recall correctly, the carry-throughs don't meet. Could be wrong though, it's been a long time. I was sensitive to this as a 1-36 near Colorado Springs returned from a flight with more dihedral than it departed with and another wound up in a BBQ pit in Boulder when a wing folded up. Not saying both weren't abused in flight, but the second ended up in a lengthy, ultimately unsuccessful, litigation with the operator's estate. Am also aware of at least a 1-26 where the wing folded up also, with better results. But never had access to a 1-26D or E to fly.
> >
> > Frank Whiteley
>
> The 1-36 that got bent by the idiot in Boulder lives at our field and flies all the time. It is a testament to Ernie Schweizer's use of multiple redundant members in the spar. Nothing broke. It just yielded and stayed together to save the pilot's life. Irv Prue did the repair and told me he really liked the engineering.
> UH
> >
> >

More than one at Boulder I guess. The one I recall was a fatal, 1997. Maybe this link will work to download a PDF. I don't think this one was rebuilt. If it was, it's got another N number.
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/GeneratePDF.aspx?id=FTW97FA033&rpt=fi

The one we had went to Penn State where was written off and rebuilt in Utah I think, where it may still be flying. It was unpopular at our club and was a hangar queen as a result. The last year the amortized cost of insurance per flight was $30, so it went away.

Frank Whiteley

[Frank Whiteley]

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 3:29:24 PM UTC-7, WB wrote:
> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 10:58:10 AM UTC-6, Cookie wrote:
> > Twitchy?? Or "responsive"....
> >
> > Once you get used to it, and keep a steady hand...it flies great!
> >
> > I think the wing rood is the same as the 1-34 (basically 1-36 has shorter 1-34 wings...)....Never heard of s structural problem with either 34 or 36...
> >
> >
> > Cookie
>
> There's been a couple of 1-34's come apart in flight due to botched aerobatics and I have seen a couple of other 1-34's that were "loose" all over due to having been overstressed by owners who frequently did aerobatics. What is it about 1-34's that encouraged aerobatic flight? Maybe it's my unschooled eyes, but the 1-34 just does not look an aerobatic mount to me.
>
> Don't know about any 1-36's coming apart. Has to be a tough little sucker to have survived the infamous "barograph notching incident" in CO that more than doubled the dihedral.

Our 1-34 had major re-riveting of the wings as a result of botched flying. It had surprisingly low time to be showing such worry. It was sold and replaced with an LS-4a.

Frank

[Bill D]

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 10:03:27 AM UTC-7, Cookie wrote:

> My airplane transition pilots always seemed to like the 2-32 because it flies more like an airplane than it does like a glider.

Which would seem to be precisely the reason one would NOT want to use a 2-33 for transition. If it flies "just like and airplane" then what's the point of the transition? A trainer that flies like a real glider results in a transitioned pilot who knows how to fly a glider.

[Tony[_5_]]

2-32,Bill...

[Cookie]

I mentioned 2-32 in my comments...you replied with 2-33...

There is plenty more to transition to gliders than how a particular glider "handles"...you know, like all that soaring and stuff like that!

Sometimes you don't have a choice of what you get to teach in...so sometimes its a 2-32, sometimes 2-33....

Personally I like teaching beginners or transition pilots in ASK-21...if I had the choice...

But really, is there all that much difference from one glider to another? I mean, it's not like you need type ratings!

Cookie


On Saturday, January 3, 2015 6:29:47 PM UTC-5, Bill D wrote:
> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 10:03:27 AM UTC-7, Cookie wrote:
>
> > My airplane transition pilots always seemed to like the 2-32 because it flies more like an airplane than it does like a glider.
>
> Which would seem to be precisely the reason one would NOT want to use a 2-33 for transition. If it flies "just like and airplane" then what's the point of the transition? A trainer that flies like a real glider results in a transitioned pilot who knows how to fly a glider.

[Bill D]

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 4:42:26 PM UTC-7, Tony wrote:
> 2-32,Bill...

New glasses

[Bill D]

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 4:53:10 PM UTC-7, Cookie wrote:

> But really, is there all that much difference from one glider to another? I mean, it's not like you need type ratings!

That's a difficult thing to get one's head around. Experienced pilots who have flown many types seem to feel most gliders handle pretty much alike but to beginners, the differences seem huge.

I think an airplane pilot transitioning to gliders needs a machine that provides the greatest commonality with what they will fly in the future so they can build on their transition experience rather than start over. A 2-32 or 2-33 just doesn't give them that.

ASK-21's are expensive and therefore somewhat rare in the US but they do represent an excellent common denominator for the existing fleet of high performance gliders. I would advise any airplane pilot transiting to gliders to seek out a place where they can use one.

[WB]

> I went for a passenger flight in a 1-36 once. As whatever inputs I made did not seem to do anything i logged it as a passenger flight! It would make a great Drone. Better still a target drone.
>
> Kerry

There used to be a 1-36 drone out at Edwards. They had a 1-36 and a PIK motorglider sitting in the NASA hangar. Seems like the 1-36 was flown both with and without a pilot. I think I remember seeing a picture of the 1-36 flying (falling) with a "dethermalizer" tailplane setup for high angles of attack research.

[WB]

> There used to be a 1-36 drone out at Edwards. They had a 1-36 and a PIK motorglider sitting in the NASA hangar. Seems like the 1-36 was flown both with and without a pilot. I think I remember seeing a picture of the 1-36 flying (falling) with a "dethermalizer" tailplane setup for high angles of attack research.

Ah, found a picture of the NASA 1-36. It was used for deep stall research. Here's the url:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/multimedia/imagegallery/Schweizer-1-36/index.html#.VKq2dydEWLk

[[email protected]]

Being 6'4" tall and weighing 200 pounds, I can say I hate any glider I cannot fit into. The list of these gliders is a long one and contains many otherwise desirable examples.

[Peter Smith[_3_]]

On Monday, January 5, 2015 11:08:51 AM UTC-5, WB wrote:
> > There used to be a 1-36 drone out at Edwards. They had a 1-36 and a PIK motorglider sitting in the NASA hangar. Seems like the 1-36 was flown both with and without a pilot. I think I remember seeing a picture of the 1-36 flying (falling) with a "dethermalizer" tailplane setup for high angles of attack research.
>
> Ah, found a picture of the NASA 1-36. It was used for deep stall research.. Here's the url:
>
> http://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/multimedia/imagegallery/Schweizer-1-36/index.html#.VKq2dydEWLk

The highly modified Schweizer 1-36 NASA used for deep stall research is now at the National Soaring Museum. It's in poor condition and therefore not currently on display. We have photos and videos of it in flight, piloted by Einar Enevoldson.

[WB]

>
> The highly modified Schweizer 1-36 NASA used for deep stall research is now at the National Soaring Museum. It's in poor condition and therefore not currently on display. We have photos and videos of it in flight, piloted by Einar Enevoldson.

I saw it in the NASA hangar at Edwards around 1990 or 91. Seemed to be in OK shape at the time. The cockpit looked like it had a bunch of electronics mounted where the seat had been. That's what made me think that it had been flown as a drone.