2018 - AN EXCITING YEAR

[[email protected]]

You may not be aware of the new sailplanes being publicly released this year.

1. From Poland comes the news release of the Diana 3. It is an 18 metre ship with a conventional spar - unlike the Diana 2 which is sparless. The 'Three' is a real 'looker.'

2. The new Diana 2 has been worked on and now comes with a FES. They are guaranteeing that the FES makes the "Two" a self launcher.

3. Schempp-Hirth are aggressively promoting their Ventus 3 Sport. An all new fuselage that will accommodate taller pilots.

4. From Russia comes the release of an all new 13.5m sailplane. It looks good too! They are claiming it will be the cheapest competition sailplane on the market. It should be a first sailplane buy for any new competition pilot to get into the scene.

5. Blanik are making reductions in cost to modify their spars.

Its a busy time for us getting all these stories into our March issue.

JOHN ROAKE
EDITOR
GLIDING INTERNATIONAL

[Tony[_5_]]

The Russians had two gliders in Lithuania in 2015. One flapped one not. Which one is the "new" one?

[[email protected]]

The new Ventus fuselage for bigger pilots (and the self launcher engine) is the "Performance" fuselage - so named, I guess, because it should have less of it than the smaller existing "Sport" version.

[AS]

On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 7:46:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> You may not be aware of the new sailplanes being publicly released this year.
>
> 1. From Poland comes the news release of the Diana 3. It is an 18 metre ship with a conventional spar - unlike the Diana 2 which is sparless. The 'Three' is a real 'looker.'
>
> 2. The new Diana 2 has been worked on and now comes with a FES. They are guaranteeing that the FES makes the "Two" a self launcher.
>
> 3. Schempp-Hirth are aggressively promoting their Ventus 3 Sport. An all new fuselage that will accommodate taller pilots.
>
> 4. From Russia comes the release of an all new 13.5m sailplane. It looks good too! They are claiming it will be the cheapest competition sailplane on the market. It should be a first sailplane buy for any new competition pilot to get into the scene.
>
> 5. Blanik are making reductions in cost to modify their spars.
>
> Its a busy time for us getting all these stories into our March issue.
>
> JOHN ROAKE
> EDITOR
> GLIDING INTERNATIONAL

Any new affordable trainers to replace the aging fleet of 2-33, TwinAstir or K21 models on the horizon? Without them, we are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic!
Uli
'AS'

[Tango Whisky]

Why would you replace an ASK21?! To gain what?

[Bruce Hoult]

On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 3:18:07 PM UTC+3, Tango Whisky wrote:
> Why would you replace an ASK21?! To gain what?

At the time my club was looking to replace two aging Twin Astirs and a Janus (all made in 1978) the ASK21 cost 60k EUR and the 18m DG1000 Club cost 70k EUR.

Both gliders have great handling and are fully aerobatic and suitable for training beginners. For the extra 10k EUR we got:

- 20 years newer design

- about 41:1 L/D instead of 34. That's significant in cross country training, or even just in reaching lift from a winch launch.

- min sink is only 80% of the K21. More time in the air from every launch.

- G limits are also a bit larger: +7/-5 vs +6.5/-4

- classic stall/spin characteristics through the full C0fG range. The ASK21 needs gimmicky tail weights.


It seemed like a pretty small price increment, so our club bought the first two produced. Since then several air forces around the world (including USAF) have placed large orders for them.

[Kiwi User]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 03:58:51 -0800, AS wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 7:46:26 PM UTC-5,
> wrote:
>> You may not be aware of the new sailplanes being publicly released this
>> year.
>>
>> 1. From Poland comes the news release of the Diana 3. It is an 18
>> metre ship with a conventional spar - unlike the Diana 2 which is
>> sparless. The 'Three' is a real 'looker.'
>>
>> 2. The new Diana 2 has been worked on and now comes with a FES. They
>> are guaranteeing that the FES makes the "Two" a self launcher.
>>
>> 3. Schempp-Hirth are aggressively promoting their Ventus 3 Sport. An
>> all new fuselage that will accommodate taller pilots.
>>
>> 4. From Russia comes the release of an all new 13.5m sailplane. It
>> looks good too! They are claiming it will be the cheapest competition
>> sailplane on the market. It should be a first sailplane buy for any new
>> competition pilot to get into the scene.
>>
>> 5. Blanik are making reductions in cost to modify their spars.
>>
>> Its a busy time for us getting all these stories into our March issue.
>>
>> JOHN ROAKE EDITOR GLIDING INTERNATIONAL
>
> Any new affordable trainers to replace the aging fleet of 2-33,
> TwinAstir or K21 models on the horizon? Without them, we are just
> rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic!
> Uli 'AS'

I can see why you might niggle about Twin Astirs/Grob Acros and the 2-33,
but what's wrong with the ASK-21? On good days our instructors take near
solo students on out and return flights to the club at Husbands Bosworth,
70km away, in ours. AFAIK they haven't landed out yet doing this.

In any case the SZD-54 Perkoz is worth looking at. It has similar
performance to the ASK-21 with 17.8m wings. Add the 20m extensions with
winglets and its also a 42:1 XC trainer.

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 8:20:50 AM UTC-5, Kiwi User wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 03:58:51 -0800, AS wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 7:46:26 PM UTC-5,
> > wrote:
> >> You may not be aware of the new sailplanes being publicly released this
> >> year.
> >>
> >> 1. From Poland comes the news release of the Diana 3. It is an 18
> >> metre ship with a conventional spar - unlike the Diana 2 which is
> >> sparless. The 'Three' is a real 'looker.'
> >>
> >> 2. The new Diana 2 has been worked on and now comes with a FES. They
> >> are guaranteeing that the FES makes the "Two" a self launcher.
> >>
> >> 3. Schempp-Hirth are aggressively promoting their Ventus 3 Sport. An
> >> all new fuselage that will accommodate taller pilots.
> >>
> >> 4. From Russia comes the release of an all new 13.5m sailplane. It
> >> looks good too! They are claiming it will be the cheapest competition
> >> sailplane on the market. It should be a first sailplane buy for any new
> >> competition pilot to get into the scene.
> >>
> >> 5. Blanik are making reductions in cost to modify their spars.
> >>
> >> Its a busy time for us getting all these stories into our March issue.
> >>
> >> JOHN ROAKE EDITOR GLIDING INTERNATIONAL
> >
> > Any new affordable trainers to replace the aging fleet of 2-33,
> > TwinAstir or K21 models on the horizon? Without them, we are just
> > rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic!
> > Uli 'AS'
>
> I can see why you might niggle about Twin Astirs/Grob Acros and the 2-33,
> but what's wrong with the ASK-21? On good days our instructors take near
> solo students on out and return flights to the club at Husbands Bosworth,
> 70km away, in ours. AFAIK they haven't landed out yet doing this.
>
> In any case the SZD-54 Perkoz is worth looking at. It has similar
> performance to the ASK-21 with 17.8m wings. Add the 20m extensions with
> winglets and its also a 42:1 XC trainer.

Perkoz website says 17.5m wings, claims 37:1 (vs ASK-21 34:1). http://szd.com.pl/downloads/4e898c268ad6dszd-54-perkoz-en.pdf ; never flown one but it looked nice at a previous SSA convention. According to the Transport Canada registry, there are 3 in the country (Edmonton, Quebec, Toronto). Certainly worth a look. Factory support for my SZD-55 has been good, and also for our club Puchacz...

I'll be interested to see item 5 - like many clubs, we have an L-13 at the back of the hangar. A north american-available (no european shipping) cost-effective fix would be nice...

[Kevin Neave[_2_]]

I think the emphasis was on *affordable*

A new K21, DG1000, or Perkoz are all around 80-85k Euro.
Plus VAT
Plus trailer
Plus Instruments

This means it's unlikely that you'd get a new 2-seater in the UK for much
less than 120k GBP

There doesn't seem to be much in the way of suitable 2nd hand ab-initio
trainers around at the moment

KN


At 13:20 14 February 2018, Kiwi User wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 03:58:51 -0800, AS wrote:
>
>>
>> Any new affordable trainers to replace the aging fleet of 2-33,
>> TwinAstir or K21 models on the horizon? Without them, we are just
>> rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic!
>> Uli 'AS'
>
>

[Frank Whiteley]

On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 4:58:54 AM UTC-7, AS wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 7:46:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > You may not be aware of the new sailplanes being publicly released this year.
> >
> > 1. From Poland comes the news release of the Diana 3. It is an 18 metre ship with a conventional spar - unlike the Diana 2 which is sparless. The 'Three' is a real 'looker.'
> >
> > 2. The new Diana 2 has been worked on and now comes with a FES. They are guaranteeing that the FES makes the "Two" a self launcher.
> >
> > 3. Schempp-Hirth are aggressively promoting their Ventus 3 Sport. An all new fuselage that will accommodate taller pilots.
> >
> > 4. From Russia comes the release of an all new 13.5m sailplane. It looks good too! They are claiming it will be the cheapest competition sailplane on the market. It should be a first sailplane buy for any new competition pilot to get into the scene.
> >
> > 5. Blanik are making reductions in cost to modify their spars.
> >
> > Its a busy time for us getting all these stories into our March issue.
> >
> > JOHN ROAKE
> > EDITOR
> > GLIDING INTERNATIONAL
>
> Any new affordable trainers to replace the aging fleet of 2-33, TwinAstir or K21 models on the horizon? Without them, we are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic!
> Uli
> 'AS'

A US TC for the SZD-54 would be useful.

Frank Whiteley

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 13:44 14 February 2018, Kevin Neave wrote:
>I think the emphasis was on *affordable*
>
>A new K21, DG1000, or Perkoz are all around 80-85k Euro.
>Plus VAT
>Plus trailer
>Plus Instruments
>
>This means it's unlikely that you'd get a new 2-seater in the UK for muc
>less than 120k GBP
>
>There doesn't seem to be much in the way of suitable 2nd hand ab-initi
>trainers around at the moment
>
>KN
>
>
>At 13:20 14 February 2018, Kiwi User wrote:
>>On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 03:58:51 -0800, AS wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Any new affordable trainers to replace the aging fleet of 2-33,
>>> TwinAstir or K21 models on the horizon? Without them, we are just
>>> rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic!
>>> Uli 'AS'
>>

PW6

[AS]

On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 8:45:07 AM UTC-5, Kevin Neave wrote:
> I think the emphasis was on *affordable*
>
> A new K21, DG1000, or Perkoz are all around 80-85k Euro.
> Plus VAT
> Plus trailer
> Plus Instruments
>
> This means it's unlikely that you'd get a new 2-seater in the UK for much
> less than 120k GBP
>
> There doesn't seem to be much in the way of suitable 2nd hand ab-initio
> trainers around at the moment
>
> KN
>
>
> At 13:20 14 February 2018, Kiwi User wrote:
> >On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 03:58:51 -0800, AS wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Any new affordable trainers to replace the aging fleet of 2-33,
> >> TwinAstir or K21 models on the horizon? Without them, we are just
> >> rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic!
> >> Uli 'AS'
> >
> >

Kevin - you got it!
There is nothing wrong with the TwinII or the K21 except most TwinIIs in the US are essentially single seat gliders with a large luggage compartment due to multiple repairs while the K21s are few and far between and when one comes up for sale, it still costs a fortune.
We need an affordable, well performing fiberglass trainer that prepares future pilots for the V3, D3, etc.
Uli
'AS'

[[email protected]]

Or go back to dragging students just above the ground in open primary type gliders...

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 18:17 14 February 2018, AS wrote:
>On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 8:45:07 AM UTC-5, Kevin Neave
wrote:
>> I think the emphasis was on *affordable*
>>=20
>> A new K21, DG1000, or Perkoz are all around 80-85k Euro.
>> Plus VAT
>> Plus trailer
>> Plus Instruments
>>=20
>> This means it's unlikely that you'd get a new 2-seater in the UK for
much
>> less than 120k GBP
>>=20
>> There doesn't seem to be much in the way of suitable 2nd hand ab-
initio
>> trainers around at the moment
>>=20
>> KN
>>=20
>>=20
>> At 13:20 14 February 2018, Kiwi User wrote:
>> >On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 03:58:51 -0800, AS wrote:
>> >
>> >>=20
>> >> Any new affordable trainers to replace the aging fleet of 2-33,
>> >> TwinAstir or K21 models on the horizon? Without them, we are
just
>> >> rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic!
>> >> Uli 'AS'
>> >
>> >
>
>Kevin - you got it!
>There is nothing wrong with the TwinII or the K21 except most TwinIIs
in
>th=
>e US are essentially single seat gliders with a large luggage
compartment
>d=
>ue to multiple repairs while the K21s are few and far between and
when one
>=
>comes up for sale, it still costs a fortune.
>We need an affordable, well performing fiberglass trainer that prepares
>fut=
>ure pilots for the V3, D3, etc.
>Uli
>'AS'


PW 6

[Michael Opitz]

At 18:17 14 February 2018, AS wrote:

>Kevin - you got it!
There is nothing wrong with the TwinII or the K21 except most
TwinIIs in the US are essentially single seat gliders with a large
luggage compartment due to multiple repairs while the K21s are
few and far between and when one comes up for sale, it still costs
a fortune. We need an affordable, well performing fiberglass
trainer that prepares future pilots for the V3, D3, etc.

Uli

'AS'

-----------------------------------------------------
That's why my brother and I have been importing Twin 1's.

-They can still be had for a reasonable cost.

-Handling is improved if one puts STC approved Z-Tape in front
of the control surfaces.

-L/D = 38/1 - better than Twin II or ASK-21, and qualifies with
insurance companies for pilots wanting to fly higher performance
gliders. 38/1 is the cut-off, so Twin II and ASK-21 don't qualify.
Twin 1 actually climbs better too, as it can comfortably fly slower
than the Twin II.

- payload of 506 Lbs (NDH of course) allows for 66 Lbs of damage
repairs before one ever even gets down to the 440 Lbs NEW NDH
payload of a Twin II !!

-12,000 hour service life compared to 5-6K hours on Blaniks.
(and then go try and get any kind of factory support for a
Blanik in the USA - good luck...)

_LTB Lindner in Germany has taken over all Grob glider patents,
rights, molds, dies, spare parts, STC, etc. They provide pretty
much "factory" service. If they don't have a spare part on hand,
they can make one, so there is good service support available.

-The Twin 1's were to a large extent the "DUO" discus of their day.
Most training was done in Ka-7's and ASK-13's. The Twin 1's were
often "sacred cows" which only the best pilots got to fly on XC
training, etc. So, percentage wise, Twin 1's generally have been
more pampered and less damaged than the Twin II's which were
put right into the training routine with accompanying breakage.

Yes, ground handling is harder due to the tail dolly, etc. Yes,
the back seat has the gear well protruding into the seat area
which takes some arranging of cushions in order to get
comfortable. Yes, the controls are a little stiff, (commensurate
with a 1970's era 17m glider) but can be made noticeably more
effective with the use of Z-Tape But for us, the positives far
outweigh the negatives, and our club has found that this is a
solution which we can live with comfortably. We currently operate
between 2 and 3 Twin 1's at any given time. Every time we think
of an ASK-21, or DUO, we come back to saying that we can have
2-3 Twin 1's for the price of one of those newer gliders.

RO

[[email protected]]

With respect to flight training, we could also consider using simulation to perform the 80% of glider flight training for which it is perfectly adequate (in fact, in many ways highly superior). This would allow clubs / commercial operations to concentration their limited financial resources on the acquisition and maintenance of far fewer (e.g. one), but much nicer (DG1000, ASK-21, etc.) actual aircraft.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration,

Scott Manley - 316716CFI
a.k.a. The Condor Guy

[Jeff Morgan]

On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 6:00:28 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> With respect to flight training, we could also consider using simulation to perform the 80% of glider flight training for which it is perfectly adequate (in fact, in many ways highly superior). This would allow clubs / commercial operations to concentration their limited financial resources on the acquisition and maintenance of far fewer (e.g. one), but much nicer (DG1000, ASK-21, etc.) actual aircraft.
>
> Respectfully submitted for your consideration,
>
> Scott Manley - 316716CFI
> a.k.a. The Condor Guy

During my days as a flight instructor at Embry Riddle, they had the same idea that simulators could replace much of the private pilot training. A test program was started under Part 142 rules, level 7 visual sims (aka the Puke Machine) was used. After the third C172 suffered heavy damage from a landing accident (no injuries), they went away from that idea pretty fast.

Sims have their place, but nowhere close to 80%.

[[email protected]]

Depends a lot on the quality of the simulation, the instructional program, and the competence & motivation of the flight instructors.

The airlines fully qualify pilots in simulators, essentially reaching 100%.

I was actually low-balling with my 80% figure. My experience using simulation-based flight training (Condor) is better than 80%.

[Dave Springford]

Back to the discussion of two-seat trainers that are available. My club has ordered two ASK-21B's for arrival in Oct/Nov. At that time our two 2008 ASK-21's will be for sale. Factory PU finish and no trailer, although we do have a Cobra trailer that can be used for round-trip if you don't have one.

For those that are now wondering - what is a K21B - it has automatic control hook-ups and a larger cockpit to account for the growth of the human species since the original design in the mid-70's.

[Jeff Morgan]

On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 12:42:17 PM UTC-7, wrote:

> The airlines fully qualify pilots in simulators, essentially reaching 100%.

A bit overstated.

After 6-8 sessions in a full motion Level D sim and the Check Ride airline pilots require 20-40 hours Initial Operating Experience in the airplane under the supervision of a Check Airman before being "finished" and signed off for line operations.

The flight footprint is often larger than the sim footprint.

And then if the new airline pilot fails to gain 100 flight hours within 90 days of the simulator check ride (IOE counts towards this), the entire training process must be repeated - FAA requirement.

But most importantly, airline pilots are not primary students.

Understand I'm not downing your product. Sims have their place. Primary students need to actually fly and land the real aircraft too.

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 7:38:01 PM UTC-5, Jeff Morgan wrote:
> On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 12:42:17 PM UTC-7, Scott Manley wrote:
>
> > The airlines fully qualify pilots in simulators, essentially reaching 100%.
>
> A bit overstated.
>
> After 6-8 sessions in a full motion Level D sim and the Check Ride airline pilots require 20-40 hours Initial Operating Experience in the airplane under the supervision of a Check Airman before being "finished" and signed off for line operations.
>
> The flight footprint is often larger than the sim footprint.
>
> And then if the new airline pilot fails to gain 100 flight hours within 90 days of the simulator check ride (IOE counts towards this), the entire training process must be repeated - FAA requirement.

===
I stand corrected. I should know better than to use 100% in any argument.
===

>
> But most importantly, airline pilots are not primary students.

===
'Not sure why that is "most" important. Both are simply humans trying to learn something. The use of simulation is about improving human learning.
===

>
> Understand I'm not downing your product. Sims have their place. Primary students need to actually fly and land the real aircraft too.

For clarification: Condor is not "my product". (I should probably stop using the nickname "The Condor Guy", given to me by others. I am actually the "Advocate for the use of flight simulation in glider flight training GUY"). I have no financial stake in Condor. I am a professional educator who understands the value of simulation in the human learning process. I use Condor because it is the best glider flight simulation available. When a better glider flight simulation becomes available, I will use it.

===

It has never been my position that "all" flight training, primary or otherwise, can or should be conducted in simulation, only that a very large percentage of it (approximately, IMHO, based on my 10 years of experience in simulation-based flight training, 80%) can and should be. Simulation is the superior "learning" environment. Actual flight is the superior "application of learning" environment.

===

My original reply to this post was not intended to highjack the thread and spur yet another debate over the value of simulation in human learning.

My intent was to provide clubs / commercial operations who struggle with the cost and complexity of maintaining actual aircraft for the purpose of providing flight training, what I believe to be a viable solution for their consideration.

Scott Manley 3167160CFI ---- Out!

[[email protected]]

So, my club has a new K21 arriving for the upcoming season. For the price of the glider, instruments and trailer ($140K +/- I think) we might be able to get a used Duo Discus and have some cash left over. For instance, there is what appears to be a nice, 20 year old Duo an W&W for $115,000. Are Duos that unsuitable for training or are K21s simply more robust and better able to handle the inevitable hard landings by students/low time pilots. Both? I have no dog in the fight as the decision has been made and I, as an owner of my own ship, will fly the K21 only for flight reviews the occasional passenger flight. Maybe. We also have a Grob Twin and L23 and either of those is suitable for those needs. I'm just curious.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 8:26:21 PM UTC+3, wrote:
> So, my club has a new K21 arriving for the upcoming season. For the price of the glider, instruments and trailer ($140K +/- I think) we might be able to get a used Duo Discus and have some cash left over. For instance, there is what appears to be a nice, 20 year old Duo an W&W for $115,000. Are Duos that unsuitable for training or are K21s simply more robust and better able to handle the inevitable hard landings by students/low time pilots. Both? I have no dog in the fight as the decision has been made and I, as an owner of my own ship, will fly the K21 only for flight reviews the occasional passenger flight. Maybe. We also have a Grob Twin and L23 and either of those is suitable for those needs. I'm just curious.

Duos are beautiful machines.

I think the main areas of concern for initial training (valid or not) are:

- unsprung wheel
- not the most powerful airbrakes in the world
- not a good idea to do inadvertent extreme attitudes
- wings lowish and 10% - 15% longer than most trainers

The DG1000 with 18m tips is better in all those areas.

[Dave Springford]

I think that you will find the primary difference between the Duo and K-21 is energy management. Teaching students to manage energy and land is one of the keys to getting them solo in a reasonable amount of time. My club purchased a Duo XL last year and while we have been training in K-21's for 10 years, the transition to the Duo was not easy for some licensed pilots.

It is much quieter than the K-21 so the noise feedback for speed control is gone.

It is much slipperier than the K-21 so subtle changes in attitude result in much larger changes in speed. Couple this with the lack of noise and pilots were finding themselves over 70 kts on final.

It carries more energy into the landing than does a K-21, although the addition of landing flaps to the XL version resolves much of this.

Besides its handling and performance, another nice advantage is the sideways opening canopy does not result in burn marks on the instrument panel in the front and headrest in the back. We've sent an S3 vario back 2 times for screen replacement because of sun burns that happen almost instantly when the sun is in the worst possible spot for a K-21.

[Chris Rowland[_2_]]

The question to ask is would you send an average pilot solo in a Duo?

Chris

At 18:47 18 February 2018, Dave Springford wrote:
>I think that you will find the primary difference between the Duo and
K-21
>=
>is energy management. Teaching students to manage energy and land is one
>o=
>f the keys to getting them solo in a reasonable amount of time. My club
>pu=
>rchased a Duo XL last year and while we have been training in K-21's for
>10=
> years, the transition to the Duo was not easy for some licensed pilots.
=
>=20
>
>It is much quieter than the K-21 so the noise feedback for speed control
>is=
> gone.
>
>It is much slipperier than the K-21 so subtle changes in attitude result
>in=
> much larger changes in speed. Couple this with the lack of noise and
>pilot=
>s were finding themselves over 70 kts on final.
>
>It carries more energy into the landing than does a K-21, although the
>addi=
>tion of landing flaps to the XL version resolves much of this.
>
>Besides its handling and performance, another nice advantage is the
>sideway=
>s opening canopy does not result in burn marks on the instrument panel in
>t=
>he front and headrest in the back. We've sent an S3 vario back 2 times
>for=
> screen replacement because of sun burns that happen almost instantly
when
>=
>the sun is in the worst possible spot for a K-21.
>

[krasw]

On Sunday, 18 February 2018 21:15:07 UTC+2, Chris Rowland wrote:
> The question to ask is would you send an average pilot solo in a Duo?
>
> Chris

Would you send pilot trained in Duo to solo in any other type?

[Bruce Hoult]

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 10:15:07 PM UTC+3, Chris Rowland wrote:
> The question to ask is would you send an average pilot solo in a Duo?

My club has sent dozens of average pilots solo in DG1000 in the last ten years.

[Jonathon May[_2_]]

At 21:42 18 February 2018, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 10:15:07 PM UTC+3, Chris
Rowland wrote:
>> The question to ask is would you send an average pilot solo in a
Duo?
>
>My club has sent dozens of average pilots solo in DG1000 in the
last ten
>years.
>

A Duo xl much easier to land .
In fairness if you loose control in a duo it picks up speed very
quickly.
Easier in a K13 but the spars are going to get worse not better

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 12:47:54 PM UTC-6, Dave Springford wrote:

Snippage
>
> It is much quieter than the K-21 so the noise feedback for speed control is gone.
>
Not an instructor but my solution is one of training. Enter the patter, gear down, side window scoop open. Instant audio airspeed. Maybe not as sensitive as an ASI, but certainly provided clues as to what you are doing.

I would assume that your club's Duo has windows with scoops on them. Try it, particularly with those who tend to wander a bit on speed.

Steve Leonard

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 12:15:07 PM UTC-7, Chris Rowland wrote:
> The question to ask is would you send an average pilot solo in a Duo?
>
> Chris
>
> At 18:47 18 February 2018, Dave Springford wrote:
> >I think that you will find the primary difference between the Duo and
> K-21
> >=
> >is energy management. Teaching students to manage energy and land is one
> >o=
> >f the keys to getting them solo in a reasonable amount of time. My club
> >pu=
> >rchased a Duo XL last year and while we have been training in K-21's for
> >10=
> > years, the transition to the Duo was not easy for some licensed pilots.
> =
> >=20
> >
> >It is much quieter than the K-21 so the noise feedback for speed control
> >is=
> > gone.
> >
> >It is much slipperier than the K-21 so subtle changes in attitude result
> >in=
> > much larger changes in speed. Couple this with the lack of noise and
> >pilot=
> >s were finding themselves over 70 kts on final.
> >
> >It carries more energy into the landing than does a K-21, although the
> >addi=
> >tion of landing flaps to the XL version resolves much of this.
> >
> >Besides its handling and performance, another nice advantage is the
> >sideway=
> >s opening canopy does not result in burn marks on the instrument panel in
> >t=
> >he front and headrest in the back. We've sent an S3 vario back 2 times
> >for=
> > screen replacement because of sun burns that happen almost instantly
> when
> >=
> >the sun is in the worst possible spot for a K-21.
> >

Yes, I would send a student solo in a Duo Discus. But a better question is how much longer would it take to get the student to solo standard vs a K21.. I am not sure what the average amount of flights to solo would be in each aircraft but I am certain it would be more in a Duo. For the sake of argument, lets say it would take 5 more flights to solo in a Duo. If you have 10 students, you will need 50 more flights from your instructor group. If that is not a big deal than get a Duo. If like most clubs your instructor time is at a premium then get a K-21 (or 2-33,L-23).

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

I fly commercial rides Sundays at my local glider port. This glider operation is now pretty much being run by the second generation, i.e., very experienced operation. They have G-103 and 2-33's. I am told that they can teach someone in in the 2-33, get them past and check ride and then check that same pilot out in the G-103, in less time than it takes to teach to check ride in the G-103.

I learned to fly gliders in the G-103, and 98% of my flight time is in high performance glass so I try to avoid as many rides in the 2-33's as possible and grab the G-103 rides.

As for students flying a quieter glider, pitch angles and a good scan. I regularly fly four different types of gliders with four different approach speeds in an environment where a Very steep wind gradient can exist, or not. All have different levels of ambient noise, from the quietest I have ever not heard, to having to shout to the ride. Takes a femtosecond to scan past ASI after you set pitch angle, then maybe another look on stabilized final.


On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 6:40:06 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 12:15:07 PM UTC-7, Chris Rowland wrote:
> > The question to ask is would you send an average pilot solo in a Duo?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > At 18:47 18 February 2018, Dave Springford wrote:
> > >I think that you will find the primary difference between the Duo and
> > K-21
> > >=
> > >is energy management. Teaching students to manage energy and land is one
> > >o=
> > >f the keys to getting them solo in a reasonable amount of time. My club
> > >pu=
> > >rchased a Duo XL last year and while we have been training in K-21's for
> > >10=
> > > years, the transition to the Duo was not easy for some licensed pilots.
> > =
> > >=20
> > >
> > >It is much quieter than the K-21 so the noise feedback for speed control
> > >is=
> > > gone.
> > >
> > >It is much slipperier than the K-21 so subtle changes in attitude result
> > >in=
> > > much larger changes in speed. Couple this with the lack of noise and
> > >pilot=
> > >s were finding themselves over 70 kts on final.
> > >
> > >It carries more energy into the landing than does a K-21, although the
> > >addi=
> > >tion of landing flaps to the XL version resolves much of this.
> > >
> > >Besides its handling and performance, another nice advantage is the
> > >sideway=
> > >s opening canopy does not result in burn marks on the instrument panel in
> > >t=
> > >he front and headrest in the back. We've sent an S3 vario back 2 times
> > >for=
> > > screen replacement because of sun burns that happen almost instantly
> > when
> > >=
> > >the sun is in the worst possible spot for a K-21.
> > >
>
> Yes, I would send a student solo in a Duo Discus. But a better question is how much longer would it take to get the student to solo standard vs a K21. I am not sure what the average amount of flights to solo would be in each aircraft but I am certain it would be more in a Duo. For the sake of argument, lets say it would take 5 more flights to solo in a Duo. If you have 10 students, you will need 50 more flights from your instructor group. If that is not a big deal than get a Duo. If like most clubs your instructor time is at a premium then get a K-21 (or 2-33,L-23).

[Jeff Morgan]

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 9:01:05 PM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:

> I learned to fly gliders in the G-103, and 98% of my flight time is in high performance glass so I try to avoid as many rides in the 2-33's as possible and grab the G-103 rides.
>

An interesting observation with respect to outreach and growing the sport that we may miss because we are so close to it:

This fall I was talking with the new girlfriend about Soaring, and she said she wanted to try it (as a passenger). So I took her out to the club which has a very well-worn 2-33.

When my turn came up, I asked her if she was ready. She gave me a small head shake and said "no". I asked if she wanted to go up with one of the instructors instead. Same answer. I let it go and we did not speak of it.

Fast forward a week. We're at the end of the Netflix queue and looking for a movie to watch, so I pop in "A Fine Day of Soaring". She sat up sharply and pointed at the screen: "There! Take me flying in that! That looks safe!"

Two things sell to the general pubic - Sexy and Safe (looking). The 2-33 fails badly on both counts.

The bad news is I may have to buy a glass 2 seater now ...

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Glass two seater, i.e., Nimbus 4D and ASH-25 is the most fun I have had flying gliders. Highly recommend it. However, if you are teaching, a higher drag aircraft does not build speed as fast as a sleek one.

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 8:50:14 PM UTC-8, Jeff Morgan wrote:
> On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 9:01:05 PM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>
> > I learned to fly gliders in the G-103, and 98% of my flight time is in high performance glass so I try to avoid as many rides in the 2-33's as possible and grab the G-103 rides.
> >
>
> An interesting observation with respect to outreach and growing the sport that we may miss because we are so close to it:
>
> This fall I was talking with the new girlfriend about Soaring, and she said she wanted to try it (as a passenger). So I took her out to the club which has a very well-worn 2-33.
>
> When my turn came up, I asked her if she was ready. She gave me a small head shake and said "no". I asked if she wanted to go up with one of the instructors instead. Same answer. I let it go and we did not speak of it.
>
> Fast forward a week. We're at the end of the Netflix queue and looking for a movie to watch, so I pop in "A Fine Day of Soaring". She sat up sharply and pointed at the screen: "There! Take me flying in that! That looks safe!"
>
> Two things sell to the general pubic - Sexy and Safe (looking). The 2-33 fails badly on both counts.
>
> The bad news is I may have to buy a glass 2 seater now ...

[[email protected]]

> Yes, I would send a student solo in a Duo Discus. But a better question is how much longer would it take to get the student to solo standard vs a K21. I am not sure what the average amount of flights to solo would be in each aircraft but I am certain it would be more in a Duo. For the sake of argument, lets say it would take 5 more flights to solo in a Duo. If you have 10 students, you will need 50 more flights from your instructor group. If that is not a big deal than get a Duo. If like most clubs your instructor time is at a premium then get a K-21 (or 2-33,L-23).

One solution to the shortage of instructor hours is to use simulation. Simulation allows the instructor to get a lot more teaching done in a lot less time. Simulation-based instruction can be done any time of the day, any day of the week, and any week of the year, making it more likely the instructor gets to fly his/her own glider once in a while. Simulation also lends itself nicely to group instruction.

I mention this here because the latest release of Condor includes a Duo Discus. A club could do a lot of Duo-specific flight training in simulation prior to putting students in the glider. The flight dynamics are very accurate, so students would develop a sense of control response/effectiveness, speed control, descent rates, and sight pictures. Have them do 50-100 traffic patterns and landings in simulation before you put them in the actual aircraft and you'll lose a lot less sleep worrying about them wrecking the club Duo.

For you ASK-21 fans, an ASK-21 is in the works for Condor2.

If any of you have Skype, I would be willing to provide a flight demonstration of the Duo in Condor2. I will also have Condor2 running in a booth on the exhibit hall floor at the convention in Reno for those of you in attendance who would like to try it out.

For a Skype demo, contact me at smanley @ wisc dot edu, use the contact feature on my website gliderCFI.com or call me at six zero eight two two two six eight four three.

Scott Manley 3167160CFI

P.S. A reminder: I don't have any financial interest in Condor. I am an advocate for the sport of soaring, and specialize in glider flight simulation as a means to that end.

[Dan Marotta]

In my experience it's better to start out in a glider that builds up
speed quickly than to develop your habits in a drag queen and then move
up and have to essentially start over.

On 2/18/2018 10:21 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Glass two seater, i.e., Nimbus 4D and ASH-25 is the most fun I have had flying gliders. Highly recommend it. However, if you are teaching, a higher drag aircraft does not build speed as fast as a sleek one.
>
> On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 8:50:14 PM UTC-8, Jeff Morgan wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 9:01:05 PM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>>
>>> I learned to fly gliders in the G-103, and 98% of my flight time is in high performance glass so I try to avoid as many rides in the 2-33's as possible and grab the G-103 rides.
>>>
>> An interesting observation with respect to outreach and growing the sport that we may miss because we are so close to it:
>>
>> This fall I was talking with the new girlfriend about Soaring, and she said she wanted to try it (as a passenger). So I took her out to the club which has a very well-worn 2-33.
>>
>> When my turn came up, I asked her if she was ready. She gave me a small head shake and said "no". I asked if she wanted to go up with one of the instructors instead. Same answer. I let it go and we did not speak of it.
>>
>> Fast forward a week. We're at the end of the Netflix queue and looking for a movie to watch, so I pop in "A Fine Day of Soaring". She sat up sharply and pointed at the screen: "There! Take me flying in that! That looks safe!"
>>
>> Two things sell to the general pubic - Sexy and Safe (looking). The 2-33 fails badly on both counts.
>>
>> The bad news is I may have to buy a glass 2 seater now ...

--
Dan, 5J

[Bruce Hoult]

On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 7:22:04 PM UTC+3, wrote:
> > Yes, I would send a student solo in a Duo Discus. But a better question is how much longer would it take to get the student to solo standard vs a K21. I am not sure what the average amount of flights to solo would be in each aircraft but I am certain it would be more in a Duo. For the sake of argument, lets say it would take 5 more flights to solo in a Duo. If you have 10 students, you will need 50 more flights from your instructor group. If that is not a big deal than get a Duo. If like most clubs your instructor time is at a premium then get a K-21 (or 2-33,L-23).
>
> One solution to the shortage of instructor hours is to use simulation. Simulation allows the instructor to get a lot more teaching done in a lot less time. Simulation-based instruction can be done any time of the day, any day of the week, and any week of the year, making it more likely the instructor gets to fly his/her own glider once in a while. Simulation also lends itself nicely to group instruction.
>
> I mention this here because the latest release of Condor includes a Duo Discus. A club could do a lot of Duo-specific flight training in simulation prior to putting students in the glider. The flight dynamics are very accurate, so students would develop a sense of control response/effectiveness, speed control, descent rates, and sight pictures. Have them do 50-100 traffic patterns and landings in simulation before you put them in the actual aircraft and you'll lose a lot less sleep worrying about them wrecking the club Duo.
>
> For you ASK-21 fans, an ASK-21 is in the works for Condor2.

At my club we built a simulator using an old Cirrus fuselage with the original controls, a giant plasma TV cast off from a corporate office, a small LCD panel to display instruments, and Condor.

It works really well.

However it's not at all necessary to have the exact kind of glider modelled in the sim. We find that the ASW28, in particular, is a sufficiently close match to the DG1000 that any differences in the simulated characteristics are much less important than the difference between the simulator and the real aircraft.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Curious, why do you say that?
Yes, I started (decades ago) in a 2-33, soloed, went to a 1-26, then a 1-34 (couple flights) then (after going up in a Cessna -150 to learn flaps......."flaps down, nose down......flaps up, nose up") I went through a 1-35 and a PIK-20.
Since then a few more "SGS", 2 place Lark, as well as a list of ASW sailplanes (-24 and up).
Also a CFIG for about 8 years.

Maybe it was my primary instructor (Uncle Hank), doubt it was my ability.

Just curious why you made the comment?

[Bruce Hoult]

On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 7:32:07 PM UTC+3, Dan Marotta wrote:
> In my experience it's better to start out in a glider that builds up
> speed quickly than to develop your habits in a drag queen and then move
> up and have to essentially start over.

I confess I don't really understand this supposed problem with a slippery glider that "builds up speed quickly".

It can only do that if you're losing a shedload of height in the process. On landing approach that's blindingly obvious, and you can turn that speed back into height, so it's not any kind of problem. At altitude it might be less obvious, but it's also harmless as long as you don't exceed Vne. Even in the quietest glider, the sound and control feel difference between 60 knots and 120 knots is pretty obvious.

[Karl Kunz[_2_]]

Keep in mind airline pilots are already rated to fly. The sims are just for transition to a new aircraft. (i.e. type rating)

[Dave Springford]

>
> I confess I don't really understand this supposed problem with a slippery glider that "builds up speed quickly".

The problem comes when teaching students. The more difficult (slipperier) the glider to fly, the longer it takes to get a student solo.

As someone else mentioned previously, This uses instructor resources that could be better spent teaching other people to fly. It also takes up glider resources and students have to wait longer between flights.

Alternately, the "slow" student gets frustrated at not yet being solo after 50 flights and quits the sport. Some of the students that are waiting in line for the "slow" student to get it also get frustrated with the low number of flights they can achieve in a day and they quit too.

The problem is not that you can't teach someone to fly in a Duo or K-21, it is a question of resources available and the impact on the overall progress of all students in the club.

[Dave Springford]

>
> I confess I don't really understand this supposed problem with a slippery glider that "builds up speed quickly".

The problem comes when teaching students. The more difficult (slipperier) the glider to fly, the longer it takes to get a student solo.

As someone else mentioned previously, This uses instructor resources that could be better spent teaching other people to fly. It also takes up glider resources and students have to wait longer between flights.

Eventually, the "slow" student gets frustrated at not yet being solo after 50 flights and quits the sport. Some of the students that have been waiting in line for the "slow" students to get it also get frustrated with the low number of flights they can achieve in a day and they quit too. So the slow student can cause not only one lost member, but more.

The problem is not that you can't teach someone to fly in a Duo or 1000, it is a question of resources available and the impact on the overall progress of all students in the club.

[krasw]

On Monday, 19 February 2018 19:45:08 UTC+2, Dave Springford wrote:>
> The problem is not that you can't teach someone to fly in a Duo or 1000, it is a question of resources available and the impact on the overall progress of all students in the club.

"Slippery, difficult" is concept invented by old men taught in primary gliders. No student even understands what that mean if only thing he/she flies is Duo.

[Dave Springford]

>
> "Slippery, difficult" is concept invented by old men taught in primary gliders. No student even understands what that mean if only thing he/she flies is Duo.

That still does not mean the student will be able to solo in a Duo in the same number of flights as they can in a K-21.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 11:26:53 PM UTC+3, Dave Springford wrote:
> >
> > "Slippery, difficult" is concept invented by old men taught in primary gliders. No student even understands what that mean if only thing he/she flies is Duo.
>
> That still does not mean the student will be able to solo in a Duo in the same number of flights as they can in a K-21.

I'd be very surprised if there is any significant difference in flights to solo between an ASK21, a Grob, and a DG1000 with 18m tips.

The Duo might be a little bit more. But probably less than soloing in an ASK21 and then converting.

[Jonathon May[_2_]]

At 20:26 19 February 2018, Dave Springford wrote:
>>
>> "Slippery, difficult" is concept invented by old men taught in
primary
>gliders. No student even understands what that mean if only thing
he/she
>flies is Duo.
>
>That still does not mean the student will be able to solo in a Duo
in the
>same number of flights as they can in a K-21.
>

I have a Duo,and flown loads of pilots as guests,some loose it in
thermal turns with the speed and gee building.I always politely take
over very quickly.If I am in the duo its a personal glider and I am
not trying to instruct .But its a great ship and sadly for sale as my
partner wants to give up.

[Ben Coleman]

Keeping in mind what the next step is (our club has a Junior but it is foreseeable that the first single seater will be a Discus 2 or similar), having a draggy trainer is becoming less and less relevant.

Cheers Ben

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Learning on the bunny hill is normal before moving to triple black diamonds. If you start on the diamonds you will learn much slower, and the instructor pilot will have to intervene much earlier when things start to go bad.

On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 1:41:59 PM UTC-8, Ben Coleman wrote:
> Keeping in mind what the next step is (our club has a Junior but it is foreseeable that the first single seater will be a Discus 2 or similar), having a draggy trainer is becoming less and less relevant.
>
> Cheers Ben

[Tango Whisky]

Le lundi 19 février 2018 18:45:08 UTC+1, Dave Springford a écritÂ*:
> The problem comes when teaching students. The more difficult (slipperier) the glider to fly, the longer it takes to get a student solo.

No.
I have been training students ab initio on Ka7, Janus and ASK21 in different clubs. No significant difference.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 12:15:07 AM UTC+3, Jonathon May wrote:
> At 20:26 19 February 2018, Dave Springford wrote:
> >>
> >> "Slippery, difficult" is concept invented by old men taught in
> primary
> >gliders. No student even understands what that mean if only thing
> he/she
> >flies is Duo.
> >
> >That still does not mean the student will be able to solo in a Duo
> in the
> >same number of flights as they can in a K-21.
> >
>
> I have a Duo,and flown loads of pilots as guests,some loose it in
> thermal turns with the speed and gee building.I always politely take
> over very quickly.If I am in the duo its a personal glider and I am
> not trying to instruct .But its a great ship and sadly for sale as my
> partner wants to give up.

That happens with first timers in a Blanik too.

Where are you located?

[Jonathon May[_2_]]

At 09:47 20 February 2018, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 12:15:07 AM UTC+3, Jonathon
May wrote:
>> At 20:26 19 February 2018, Dave Springford wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Slippery, difficult" is concept invented by old men taught in
>> primary
>> >gliders. No student even understands what that mean if only
thing
>> he/she
>> >flies is Duo.
>> >
>> >That still does not mean the student will be able to solo in a
Duo
>> in the
>> >same number of flights as they can in a K-21.
>> >
>>
>> I have a Duo,and flown loads of pilots as guests,some loose it in
>> thermal turns with the speed and gee building.I always politely
take
>> over very quickly.If I am in the duo its a personal glider and I
am
>> not trying to instruct .But its a great ship and sadly for sale as
my
>> partner wants to give up.
>
>That happens with first timers in a Blanik too.
>
>Where are you located?
Sutton bank UK
>

[Kiwi User]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:22:53 -0800, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:

> Learning on the bunny hill is normal before moving to triple black
> diamonds. If you start on the diamonds you will learn much slower, and
> the instructor pilot will have to intervene much earlier when things
> start to go bad.
>
A Junior is plenty good enough to get your Silver C in (I did) and the
Poles have flown 300 km tasks in them, so Gold should be on the cards
with a portable oxygen system installed. One of ours went to Edensoaring
as part of last year's expedition and those flying it had a ball.

> On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 1:41:59 PM UTC-8, Ben Coleman wrote:
>> Keeping in mind what the next step is (our club has a Junior but it is
>> foreseeable that the first single seater will be a Discus 2 or
>> similar), having a draggy trainer is becoming less and less relevant.
>>
>> Cheers Ben





--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org