Wanted 1-36

[Kurt]

We are looking for a single place ship for our rental fleet,
preferably a 1-36. If you have one for sale, e-mail me at:



Thanks!

[Liam Finley]

(Kurt) wrote in message >...
> We are looking for a single place ship for our rental fleet,
> preferably a 1-36. If you have one for sale, e-mail me at:
>

Why do you hate renters so much that you would force a 1-36 upon them?

[Kurt]

(Liam Finley) wrote in message >...
> (Kurt) wrote in message >...
> > We are looking for a single place ship for our rental fleet,
> > preferably a 1-36. If you have one for sale, e-mail me at:
> >
>
> Why do you hate renters so much that you would force a 1-36 upon them?

Probably because we are not made of money, and a 30/1 ship is a good
next step up from our 1-26. And, before anyone starts bashing
Schweizers, they make excellent sense for a commercial operation.
They are about as reliable a ship as you can get, they can be tied
down outside, and they take what renters dish out without a problem.
Both our Schweizers, 2-33 and 1-26E, fly quite allot, and have just
about zero expense in maintenance costs. Such could not be said for
the L-13 we used to have, or our Lark. For return on investment, you
can't beat a Schweizer. They are not the latest greatest, and you can
say they are several generations behind current technology, but they
pay their own way. And, if you want to have a healthy commercial
operation, that is the key.

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Liam Finley) wrote in message >...
> (Kurt) wrote in message >...
> > We are looking for a single place ship for our rental fleet,
> > preferably a 1-36. If you have one for sale, e-mail me at:
> >
>
> Why do you hate renters so much that you would force a 1-36 upon them?


My guess is probably because the Gorp 103 has turned out to be a
hangar queen that only eats money and man hours. Nobody needs two of
them.

Good luck, Kurt. (Sadie still flying?)

[Shawn Curry]

Kurt wrote:

> (Liam Finley) wrote in message >...
>
(Kurt) wrote in message >...
>>
>>>We are looking for a single place ship for our rental fleet,
>>>preferably a 1-36. If you have one for sale, e-mail me at:
>>>
>>
>>Why do you hate renters so much that you would force a 1-36 upon them?
>
>
> Probably because we are not made of money, and a 30/1 ship is a good
> next step up from our 1-26. And, before anyone starts bashing
> Schweizers, they make excellent sense for a commercial operation.
> They are about as reliable a ship as you can get, they can be tied
> down outside, and they take what renters dish out without a problem.
> Both our Schweizers, 2-33 and 1-26E, fly quite allot, and have just
> about zero expense in maintenance costs. Such could not be said for
> the L-13 we used to have, or our Lark. For return on investment, you
> can't beat a Schweizer. They are not the latest greatest, and you can
> say they are several generations behind current technology, but they
> pay their own way. And, if you want to have a healthy commercial
> operation, that is the key.

Who's bashing Schweizer? Get a 1-34 instead of a 1-36. They're more
glider for about the same money.
Shawn

[Robert Bates]

If I'm not mistaken, there's both a 1-34 at Las Vegas Soaring and a 1-35 in
Caddo Mills for sale right now, fair prices on both...

-Rob
FLF

"Shawn Curry" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Kurt wrote:
>
> > (Liam Finley) wrote in message
>...
> >
> (Kurt) wrote in message
>...
> >>
> >>>We are looking for a single place ship for our rental fleet,
> >>>preferably a 1-36. If you have one for sale, e-mail me at:
> >>>
> >>
> >>Why do you hate renters so much that you would force a 1-36 upon them?
> >
> >
> > Probably because we are not made of money, and a 30/1 ship is a good
> > next step up from our 1-26. And, before anyone starts bashing
> > Schweizers, they make excellent sense for a commercial operation.
> > They are about as reliable a ship as you can get, they can be tied
> > down outside, and they take what renters dish out without a problem.
> > Both our Schweizers, 2-33 and 1-26E, fly quite allot, and have just
> > about zero expense in maintenance costs. Such could not be said for
> > the L-13 we used to have, or our Lark. For return on investment, you
> > can't beat a Schweizer. They are not the latest greatest, and you can
> > say they are several generations behind current technology, but they
> > pay their own way. And, if you want to have a healthy commercial
> > operation, that is the key.
>
> Who's bashing Schweizer? Get a 1-34 instead of a 1-36. They're more
> glider for about the same money.
> Shawn
>

[BTIZ]

I've flown the one in Las Vegas.. almost flies itself... and climbs on just
the thought of rising air..

BT

"Robert Bates" > wrote in message
. ..
> If I'm not mistaken, there's both a 1-34 at Las Vegas Soaring and a 1-35
in
> Caddo Mills for sale right now, fair prices on both...
>
> -Rob
> FLF
>
> "Shawn Curry" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > Kurt wrote:
> >
> > > (Liam Finley) wrote in message
> >...
> > >
> > (Kurt) wrote in message
> >...
> > >>
> > >>>We are looking for a single place ship for our rental fleet,
> > >>>preferably a 1-36. If you have one for sale, e-mail me at:
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>Why do you hate renters so much that you would force a 1-36 upon them?
> > >
> > >
> > > Probably because we are not made of money, and a 30/1 ship is a good
> > > next step up from our 1-26. And, before anyone starts bashing
> > > Schweizers, they make excellent sense for a commercial operation.
> > > They are about as reliable a ship as you can get, they can be tied
> > > down outside, and they take what renters dish out without a problem.
> > > Both our Schweizers, 2-33 and 1-26E, fly quite allot, and have just
> > > about zero expense in maintenance costs. Such could not be said for
> > > the L-13 we used to have, or our Lark. For return on investment, you
> > > can't beat a Schweizer. They are not the latest greatest, and you can
> > > say they are several generations behind current technology, but they
> > > pay their own way. And, if you want to have a healthy commercial
> > > operation, that is the key.
> >
> > Who's bashing Schweizer? Get a 1-34 instead of a 1-36. They're more
> > glider for about the same money.
> > Shawn
> >
>
>

[Liam Finley]

Shawn Curry > wrote in message . net>...
>
> Who's bashing Schweizer? Get a 1-34 instead of a 1-36. They're more
> glider for about the same money.
> Shawn

Exactly. The 34 handles better, glides better, and is more readily available.

The 1-36 looks good on paper, but there's a reason so few were built.

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Kurt > wrote:
>We are looking for a single place ship for our rental fleet,
>preferably a 1-36. If you have one for sale, e-mail me at:
>

>
>Thanks!

Assuming you want a metal glider (to leave outside) and a single
seater, and reasonable insurance, why would you want a
1-34 or 1-36 instead of a 1-35? I've never flown any of the
three, but it seems like there's lots of 1-35s out
there for $15K and Dick Johnson's report and the polar
look pretty good...

I guess I don't have a good idea about the comparison between
these three sailplanes...

[Mark James Boyd]

>Who's bashing Schweizer? Get a 1-34 instead of a 1-36. They're more
>glider for about the same money.
>Shawn

So maybe Shawn can tell us how both of these compare to the
1-35? Personally, I was at a BASA meeting where they considered
getting rid of their 1-34 instead of a Pegasus, and the
members instead put $5K or so into the 1-34, because it had
such low maintenance compared to the 101A's and Grob 103s
that they just couldn't see parting with it. 100s of dollars
a year instead of 1000s.

[Liam Finley]

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<3fe7a050$1@darkstar>...
> Assuming you want a metal glider (to leave outside) and a single
> seater, and reasonable insurance, why would you want a
> 1-34 or 1-36 instead of a 1-35? I've never flown any of the
> three, but it seems like there's lots of 1-35s out
> there for $15K and Dick Johnson's report and the polar
> look pretty good...
>
> I guess I don't have a good idea about the comparison between
> these three sailplanes...

Right, a flaps-only, retractable gear as a rental ship. That's a great idea.

Hope they have a very, very long grass runway.

[Peter W]

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<3fe7a050$1@darkstar>...
> In article >,
> Kurt > wrote:
> >We are looking for a single place ship for our rental fleet,
> >preferably a 1-36. If you have one for sale, e-mail me at:
> >
>
> >
> >Thanks!
>
> Assuming you want a metal glider (to leave outside) and a single
> seater, and reasonable insurance, why would you want a
> 1-34 or 1-36 instead of a 1-35? I've never flown any of the
> three, but it seems like there's lots of 1-35s out
> there for $15K and Dick Johnson's report and the polar
> look pretty good...
>
> I guess I don't have a good idea about the comparison between
> these three sailplanes...

I just bought a very nice 1-35 with no damage history for under 15k.
I'm a low time pilot and I haven't flown the 1-35 yet, but from
talking to many owners of 1-35s I'm confident that one can transition
successfully to it as long as you understand how to land with flaps
instead of spoilers. The 1-35 is a great ship that gets no respect
since it wasn't a winner on the competition circuit. That means
nothing to me since I have NO intentions of competing ever.

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Liam Finley > wrote:
(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<3fe7a050$1@darkstar>...
>> Assuming you want a metal glider (to leave outside) and a single
>> seater, and reasonable insurance, why would you want a
>> 1-34 or 1-36 instead of a 1-35? I've never flown any of the
>
>Right, a flaps-only, retractable gear as a rental ship. That's a great idea.

I presume this is sarcasm.

>
>Hope they have a very, very long grass runway.

Excellent point. The flaps on the 1-35 do seem to have some
quirks, and the additional skill needed to time the touchdown
well using full flaps is more clear now. Flaps only is
perhaps not the way to go.

Thanks for the response, Liam!

Interesting perspective from many of you on the Schweitzer birds.
Personally, I am a very happy and proud owner of a 1-35. I've flown the
Grob, the Blanik and many others. I don't have the funds for a hangar, the
time for constant assembly and disassembly of glass birds, and at this stage
in my flying career, the joy I get from cross-country in the 1-35 can't be
beat. Flaps only? Not a problem if you're willing to learn.

Dan Thirkill




"Peter W" > wrote in message
m...
> (Mark James Boyd) wrote in message
news:<3fe7a050$1@darkstar>...
> > In article >,
> > Kurt > wrote:
> > >We are looking for a single place ship for our rental fleet,
> > >preferably a 1-36. If you have one for sale, e-mail me at:
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >Thanks!
> >
> > Assuming you want a metal glider (to leave outside) and a single
> > seater, and reasonable insurance, why would you want a
> > 1-34 or 1-36 instead of a 1-35? I've never flown any of the
> > three, but it seems like there's lots of 1-35s out
> > there for $15K and Dick Johnson's report and the polar
> > look pretty good...
> >
> > I guess I don't have a good idea about the comparison between
> > these three sailplanes...
>
> I just bought a very nice 1-35 with no damage history for under 15k.
> I'm a low time pilot and I haven't flown the 1-35 yet, but from
> talking to many owners of 1-35s I'm confident that one can transition
> successfully to it as long as you understand how to land with flaps
> instead of spoilers. The 1-35 is a great ship that gets no respect
> since it wasn't a winner on the competition circuit. That means
> nothing to me since I have NO intentions of competing ever.

[Shawn Curry]

Liam Finley wrote:

> (Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<3fe7a050$1@darkstar>...
>
>>Assuming you want a metal glider (to leave outside) and a single
>>seater, and reasonable insurance, why would you want a
>>1-34 or 1-36 instead of a 1-35? I've never flown any of the
>>three, but it seems like there's lots of 1-35s out
>>there for $15K and Dick Johnson's report and the polar
>>look pretty good...
>>
>>I guess I don't have a good idea about the comparison between
>>these three sailplanes...
>
>
> Right, a flaps-only, retractable gear as a rental ship. That's a great idea.
>
> Hope they have a very, very long grass runway.

You asked my opinion. I second Liam. For a personal ship, the 1-35
looks very good. Club/rental? I don't think so.

Happy Holidays,
Shawn

[Jeremy Zawodny]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>Who's bashing Schweizer? Get a 1-34 instead of a 1-36. They're more
>>glider for about the same money.
>>Shawn
>
>
> So maybe Shawn can tell us how both of these compare to the
> 1-35? Personally, I was at a BASA meeting where they considered
> getting rid of their 1-34 instead of a Pegasus, and the
> members instead put $5K or so into the 1-34, because it had
> such low maintenance compared to the 101A's and Grob 103s
> that they just couldn't see parting with it. 100s of dollars
> a year instead of 1000s.

For what it's work, the rivet work on BASA's 1-34 came in way under
budget. I think we paid about $3k for it, all told.

Now if only we could get a tailweheel that isn't so easy to shread on it.

Jeremy