Sikorsky To Acquire Schweizer Aircraft

[Bob Kuykendall]

This is an interesting piece of news from the helicopter industry:

> STRATFORD, Conn.,- Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.,
> a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp.
> (NYSE: UTX), today announced an agreement
> to acquire Schweizer Aircraft Corp., a
> privately owned U.S. company specializing
> in the light helicopter, reconnaissance
> aircraft, and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
> markets.

Full article at:

http://www.sikorsky.com/details/0,3036,CLI1_DIV69_ETI1857,00.html

Schweizer press release (Adobe Acrobat .pdf format) at:

http://www.sacusa.com/Aquisition_Press_Release.pdf

I would guess that this deal has been in the works since well before
the passing on 18 August 2004 of Paul A. Schweizer.

I am sure that they have considered closely the best interests of both
their stakeholders and their employees. And I wish them well in all
their future business endeavors. However, I am still just a bit
wistful at the thought of them becoming another division of United
Technologies.

Oh, well, such is business. I hope that Sikorky treats them well.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.

[[email protected]]

Heh, I hope Schweizer makes better helicopters than they did gliders.

You'll probably be able to buy the manufacturing rights for the 2-33 on
ebay soon.

[Stewart Kissel]

Gee, what a bright comment....I assume you can list
all those superior ships you flew in the '50's, '60's,
and '70's...when Schweitzer kept the US training fleet
soaring.



At 00:12 27 August 2004, wrote:
>Heh, I hope Schweizer makes better helicopters than
>they did gliders.
>
>You'll probably be able to buy the manufacturing rights
>for the 2-33 on
>ebay soon.
>
>

[Vaughn]

> wrote in message ...
> Heh, I hope Schweizer makes better helicopters than they did gliders.

There was a time when Schweizer made some of the best gliders that money
could buy, but they went on to bigger and better things. Since Paul's death, I
have been thinking about Schweizer a lot. Over the years, there have been many
derogatory things said about the 2-33 here, some of them by me. I did not much
enjoy my days instructing in the 2-33. But the fact is that you have to go back
to 1978 to find a fatal accident in one. They are here for us to malign
precisely because the Schweizers built them right. Any one that you see has
likely survived decades of terrible student landings, some of them with me at
the controls.

There is one day that I will always remember like it was yesterday...the
day my 14 year-old daughter soloed, nestled inside the swaybacked structure of a
long-suffering 2-33. (And I will always remember her instructor, Mary Gafney,
wincing at that first terrible landing) There are better flying gliders, but I
can't think of any other flying machine I would rather have trusted my
first-born to.

Here in my study there is one picture of one glider hanging on the wall, it
is the 2-33 I soloed in, some ten years after my daughter did it. I will truly
miss Schweizer aircraft.

Vaughn

[Jack]

wrote:

> Heh, I hope Schweizer makes better helicopters than they did gliders.

When you find a better trainer than the 2-33 for comparable money, let everybody know.
Until then, perhaps the 2-33 bashing bandwagon is one you should let pass. If there was
a better alternative, people who have been in the business for decades and know the
ropes would be using it instead of the 2-33.

Do you feel the 2-33 has caused your progress in soaring to be less than it would have
been if you had learned in something else, or are you just repeating what you think
you've heard?


Jack

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
>
>> Heh, I hope Schweizer makes better helicopters than they did gliders.

It seems odd to disparage a company over a product they stopped making
almost 30 years ago, products that sold well at the time (e.g., 500+
2-33s produced sounds like there was a lot of perceived value back
then). I mean, don't we all hope we're doing things better now than 30
years ago?
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
wrote:
>>
>>> Heh, I hope Schweizer makes better helicopters than they did gliders.
>
>It seems odd to disparage a company over a product they stopped making
>almost 30 years ago, products that sold well at the time (e.g., 500+
>2-33s produced sounds like there was a lot of perceived value back
>then). I mean, don't we all hope we're doing things better now than 30
>years ago?

I think he's trying to disparage the glider in the hopes of driving
the price down. Then he'll buy them all up because they're
so sturdy and reliable and he really likes them. Hmmm...sort of a
sneaky trick, don't you think?

Come to think of it, I bet the "anti-PW" posts are also
conspiracies to drive the price down so the posters can
snatch 'em up cheap. Why else would the posters bother
with such elaborate criticisms? The ol' bait and switch...

I'm not fallin' for it. Liam is clever, as are his co-conspirators,
but I see through his evil plan....
<maniacal laughter pervades the background>
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Robertmudd1u]

>When you find a better trainer than the 2-33 for comparable money, let
>everybody know.

Generally speaking you get what you pay for. Hence, the low price for 2-33s

>If there was a better alternative, people who have been in the business for
decades and know the ropes, would be using it instead of the 2-33.

They are, everywhere but in one of the world's most advanced country, the USA.


>Do you feel the 2-33 has caused your progress in soaring to be less than it
would have been if you had learned in something else,...

As a CFIG for over 30 years and with time in almost every model of trainer
produced in that time span, I have to answer "yes" to this question. The 2-33s
not only retards the individual progress but also the progress of the sport in
general.

Robert Mudd

[Shaber CJ]

>Heh, I hope Schweizer makes better helicopters than they did gliders.

They do make good helicopters. The 300 are based on the Hughes 269 type cert.
As for gliders, they seem to have withstood the test of time.

[Pete Reinhart]

Well now,
It seems to me that if you are truly an excellent instuctor, it shouldn't
make a lot of difference what you're flying to teach in.
That is, if you are teaching people to fly rather than just operate a
perticular kind of aircraft. There is something to learn from every flight
no matter what it is in. I am not comfortable in the back seat of a 2-33
anymore and I hven't taught in many years, but I admire the 2-33 greatly for
what it is and what it does. I've not done any x-c in one but I know people
who have and it's true that they are a pain to de rig in an off field
landing but so what. They do the job they were designed for admirably IMHO.
As for retarding the sport, how many glider pilots would there be now if it
weren't for the ready availibility of a functional 2-33? We have two of them
in our club and they are rarely unflyable: our Twin Astir has been down for
maintenance over six months in the preceding year, and it's not a delicate
machine.
"Course I'm not selling anything and I don't have the opinion that only a
european glider is worthy of my effort to fly it.
Cheers!

"Robertmudd1u" > wrote in message
...
> >When you find a better trainer than the 2-33 for comparable money, let
> >everybody know.
>
> Generally speaking you get what you pay for. Hence, the low price for
2-33s
>
> >If there was a better alternative, people who have been in the business
for
> decades and know the ropes, would be using it instead of the 2-33.
>
> They are, everywhere but in one of the world's most advanced country, the
USA.
>
>
> >Do you feel the 2-33 has caused your progress in soaring to be less than
it
> would have been if you had learned in something else,...
>
> As a CFIG for over 30 years and with time in almost every model of trainer
> produced in that time span, I have to answer "yes" to this question. The
2-33s
> not only retards the individual progress but also the progress of the
sport in
> general.
>
> Robert Mudd

[Gary Boggs]

It's hard to beat the 1-26 for a fun day on the ridge. If you haven't flown
one for a while, you should go rent one. They are an absolute blast to fly.
It's the most maneuverable ship I've ever flown.

Gary Boggs


"Shaber CJ" > wrote in message
...
> >Heh, I hope Schweizer makes better helicopters than they did gliders.
>
> They do make good helicopters. The 300 are based on the Hughes 269 type
cert.
> As for gliders, they seem to have withstood the test of time.

[Steve Hill]

The beauty of the 2-33 in my humble opinion, is that it gets people into the
air cheaply and quickly...is it the best? Well...at getting people into the
air cheaply and quickly AND safely...yeah I'd have to say it is. Someone
else mentioned "leagues" of soaring pilots in the US learning to fly in
2-33's and it probably is the truth. If they were available today new for a
reasonable cost, I'm sure clubs and schools would buy them. Cheap to fly,
cheap to insure, cheap to maintain...

I think what we sometimes forget, is that real soaring is learned almost by
ourselves, over time and through trial and error.Alone in the cockpit, by
trying things, not simply by just being taken out for a ride and being shown
how to soar...we learn in little increments, step at a time, learn a skill,
master it and learn a new one. We compare our performance to others in our
little brotherhood and emulate those better than us in many cases. The 2-33
allows us to get to the point where we can start to learn. The day I was
handed my first pilot certificate, Mr. Roy Beech handed it to me and said
"Now Steve...never stop learning...that's all this really is, a license to
learn"

In short, I think people should quit picking on the 2-33 and recognize that
it is an excellent entry level trainer, that offers its students the ability
to fly it from almost the first minute they touch the stick...and it begins
teaching us almost as quickly, what it wants or needs...I learned in one and
I think if my sons learn to fly, they'll learn in one...and from the first
ride in that grungy old 2-33 I have loved soaring. For me it has never
stopped and if I owe that to the venerable 2-33 then for me...that's enough.

For all it's faults as a sailplane, I have to say, to build a better intial
trainer, that is still being used daily, some 50 years after its inception,
is certainly worth more respect than that which some of the outspoken pilots
on here seem to grant.

It may not have taught me everything I needed to know about soaring, but it
sure taught me to love it...

Steve

[Chip Bearden]

> Heh, I hope Schweizer makes better helicopters than they did gliders.

For many years, visionary U.S. pilot/designer/builder Dick Schreder
(of HP-series fame) lobbied to allow flaps in the Standard Class. So
it was ironic when, on the first day of the first U.S. 15 Meter
National Soaring Championships in 1976 in Bryan, Ohio (Dick's home
airport), Les Horvath won the task flying a U.S.-built all-metal
sailplane with flaps: the Schweizer 1-35A!

My father's first glider was--as is still the case for many pilots
today--a Schweizer 1-26. His next was a 1-23B, a factory-modified
version of that series built, as I recall, for the World Championships
in 1952. I soloed in a 2-22 and am old enough to remember how much
better than that was the 2-33 when it first arrived at our club.

You'd have to work hard to get me back into a Schweizer now for
anything except a biennial flight review. But, as others have noted,
Schweizer's mainstream gliders have an enviable record for safety and
longevity...and holding their value.

At 53, I'm too old to offer the excuse that I didn't realize how much
I missed something until it was gone. So I hope that those workhorse
2-33s, 1-26s, etc.,--and the company and its people who served the
American market so well for so many years--are still around for a long
time to come.

Chip Bearden

[Eric Greenwell]

Pete Reinhart wrote:
> Well now,
> It seems to me that if you are truly an excellent instuctor, it shouldn't
> make a lot of difference what you're flying to teach in.

If you were a truly excellent instructor, you would realize how much the
trainer affects what you can teach. The other problem, of course, is
most of us aren't truly excellent instructors, just as most of us aren't
truly excellent pilots. So, we have things like automatically connecting
controls to make it easier for us to do the right thing. I've flown in
2-33s and instructed in Blaniks, and I know a 2-33 would make it much
harder for me to prepare a student for the glider I hope he/she will
purchase for post-licence flying. I don't care how good you are as an
instructor, you are still limited by the student's ablity to learn (in
general) and what you can demonstrate in particular (glider limitations).

> That is, if you are teaching people to fly rather than just operate a
> perticular kind of aircraft. There is something to learn from every flight
> no matter what it is in. I am not comfortable in the back seat of a 2-33
> anymore and I hven't taught in many years, but I admire the 2-33 greatly for
> what it is and what it does. I've not done any x-c in one but I know people
> who have and it's true that they are a pain to de rig in an off field
> landing but so what.

"So what" is big problem. A hard to derig and retrieve glider really
discourages a student from even contemplating cross-country unless he
can be sure of landing at airports for an aero retrieve, and the low
performance means it is impractical to stay within reach of airports.
Practically speaking, it means most students won't take a 2-33 away from
the home airport.

> They do the job they were designed for admirably IMHO.

I agree, but the job requirements have changed in the 40 years since
they were designed. It is not a criticism of the Schwiezers to say their
40 year old design is no longer the best choice!

> As for retarding the sport, how many glider pilots would there be now if it
> weren't for the ready availibility of a functional 2-33? We have two of them
> in our club and they are rarely unflyable: our Twin Astir has been down for
> maintenance over six months in the preceding year, and it's not a delicate
> machine.
> "Course I'm not selling anything and I don't have the opinion that only a
> european glider is worthy of my effort to fly it.

I don't have anything to sell and I don't have the opinion that only a
European glider is worthy of my effort to fly it, but I still echo
Robert's comments. Please stick with responding to what a person says
instead of disparaging motives you can only speculate about.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Jim Phoenix]

Schweizer continues to provide good and timely engineering support for
all Schweizer glider owners and operators - at least they have up
until now, I don't expect that will change. The prices for their parts
and engineering drawings may be considered high, but that is normal
because of the limited supply and cost to fabricate.

It is to their credit that they did not abandon the owners of the
aircraft they manufactured, on which they probably made little or no
profit.

While some may note that they have some sort of regulatory obligation
to support their aircraft, in my experience they have exceeded that
requirement a number of times. Others may have had a different
experience.

I hope support for the gliders will continue under the new ownership,
and I have no reason to believe it will change.

Jim


wrote in message >...
> Heh, I hope Schweizer makes better helicopters than they did gliders.
>
> You'll probably be able to buy the manufacturing rights for the 2-33 on
> ebay soon.

[Pete Reinhart]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Pete Reinhart wrote:
> > Well now,
> > It seems to me that if you are truly an excellent instuctor, it
shouldn't
> > make a lot of difference what you're flying to teach in.
>
> If you were a truly excellent instructor, you would realize how much the
> trainer affects what you can teach. The other problem, of course, is
> most of us aren't truly excellent instructors, just as most of us aren't
> truly excellent pilots. So, we have things like automatically connecting
> controls to make it easier for us to do the right thing. I've flown in
> 2-33s and instructed in Blaniks, and I know a 2-33 would make it much
> harder for me to prepare a student for the glider I hope he/she will
> purchase for post-licence flying. I don't care how good you are as an
> instructor, you are still limited by the student's ablity to learn (in
> general) and what you can demonstrate in particular (glider limitations).
>
Agree to some extent.

> > That is, if you are teaching people to fly rather than just operate a
> > perticular kind of aircraft. There is something to learn from every
flight
> > no matter what it is in. I am not comfortable in the back seat of a 2-33
> > anymore and I hven't taught in many years, but I admire the 2-33 greatly
for
> > what it is and what it does. I've not done any x-c in one but I know
people
> > who have and it's true that they are a pain to de rig in an off field
> > landing but so what.
>
> "So what" is big problem. A hard to derig and retrieve glider really
> discourages a student from even contemplating cross-country unless he
> can be sure of landing at airports for an aero retrieve, and the low
> performance means it is impractical to stay within reach of airports.
> Practically speaking, it means most students won't take a 2-33 away from
> the home airport.
>
Partially true,but it's part of the game and rigging/de-reigging is part of
the game. You can say the same thing about most of the 2seaters currently
used for training, that is, they dicourage landing anywhere they can't be
towed out of because they are such a pain to take apart and put together.

> > They do the job they were designed for admirably IMHO.
>
> I agree, but the job requirements have changed in the 40 years since
> they were designed. It is not a criticism of the Schwiezers to say their
> 40 year old design is no longer the best choice!
>
> > As for retarding the sport, how many glider pilots would there be now if
it
> > weren't for the ready availibility of a functional 2-33? We have two of
them
> > in our club and they are rarely unflyable: our Twin Astir has been down
for
> > maintenance over six months in the preceding year, and it's not a
delicate
> > machine.
> > "Course I'm not selling anything and I don't have the opinion that only
a
> > european glider is worthy of my effort to fly it.
>
> I don't have anything to sell and I don't have the opinion that only a
> European glider is worthy of my effort to fly it, but I still echo
> Robert's comments. Please stick with responding to what a person says
> instead of disparaging motives you can only speculate about.
>
> --I was entirely responding to what he said and I disagree with the tone
of his comments; it is also my privilege to speculate on whatever I care to.
Cheers!
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

[Stewart Kissel]

I recall gazing at a particularly cherry looking 2-33
at Price, Utah a few years ago..completely reskinned
and new upholstery and paint. Something about the
N-number seemed familiar, I checked my log-book...I
had soloed in it as a 14 year old in 1968 at the old
Sky Sailing in Fremont, Ca.

I suspect this thread may continue to re-occur for
another 30 years, for better or worse. Because I don't
thing you can wear the things out, and their replacements
sure are not cheap.

[Andy Durbin]

"Pete Reinhart" > wrote in message >...
> Well now,
> It seems to me that if you are truly an excellent instuctor, it shouldn't
> make a lot of difference what you're flying to teach in.

I started my flight training in the T21 and Capstan but soloed in a
2-33. As I student I did not think that the 2-33 held me back in any
way. I was soon able to progress via the 1-26 to flying my gold and 2
diamonds in a Std Jantar.

As an instructor I found the 2-33 to be limiting. Perhaps its most
serious problem is the lack of visibility from the rear seat which
makes it unsafe to thermal with other gliders unless the front seat
pilot is experienced enough to maintain separation.

I normally leave a thermal if I see a 2-33 about to join. Earlier
this year I stayed and was nearly run down.

Andy

[[email protected]]

Damned right. I want to drive the price down low enough that I can
make a profit selling them to aluminum recycling plants.

As soon as they learn how to recycle epoxy and fiberglass the PWs will
go too.

[Mark James Boyd]

Robertmudd1u > wrote:
>
>>Do you feel the 2-33 has caused your progress in soaring to be less than it
>would have been if you had learned in something else,...
>
>As a CFIG for over 30 years and with time in almost every model of trainer
>produced in that time span, I have to answer "yes" to this question. The 2-33s
>not only retards the individual progress but also the progress of the sport in
>general.

In my case, not so. If it weren't for the 2 x 2-33s and the 1-26,
my club wouldn't have had money to buy 5 seats in other gliders.

Without the five seats, and the business they give him, the
tow pilot would have moved away a long time ago to a golfing
resort.

And then, no tows for the rest of the glass ships...

More tows always = better. I seldom fly the 2-33 (I prefer
the Blanik because I don't generally do primary
training). But I'm very happy those 5 seats fly all the time
because it keeps our tuggie happy, and therefore our
tow rates down.
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Robert Ehrlich]

Stewart Kissel wrote:
>
> Gee, what a bright comment....I assume you can list
> all those superior ships you flew in the '50's, '60's,
> and '70's...when Schweitzer kept the US training fleet
> soaring.
>

Have a look at http://www.vintagesailplanes.de/Breguet.htm
(I didn't fly these glider, since I started only in 1995,
but Paul McCready won the worlds in 1956 on one of them
at St Yan).

[Mark James Boyd]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
> > They do the job they were designed for admirably IMHO.
>
>I agree, but the job requirements have changed in the 40 years since
>they were designed. It is not a criticism of the Schwiezers to say their
>40 year old design is no longer the best choice!

I'm pretty happy with the setup at our club. The 'el cheapo
2-33s get students to solo fast. Then the 1-26 adds some variety.
Then the L-13 Blanik shows them spins and some complexity
(since we can train gear and some flap procedures).

At that point they are ready for a checkride, and additionally,
they are ready for no-flap, retract, no ballast glass.
The Blanik gave them spins and tailwheel landings
and procedures, and the 1-26 gave them light controls and PIO,
and the 2-33s got them through the basics.

The benefit of 7 seats for same capital investment and maint
cost as a Grob 103 cannot be overlooked. The extra 5 seats
come in handy on those boomer days when everyone is there
and rides are going.

The flipside is the need for yet another glider, a post-license
glass solo with better L/D than the Blanik, a trailer, and
simple disassembly.

So we had a PW-5 for a while. This was a great transition
ship, and really bridged a gap between 1-26/L-13 and
Something like a PIK or HP.

Some other folks bought Russias, 1-34, etc. and seem to think
the L-13/1-26/2-33 combo was good prep.

In any case, I really like the low cost, high value variety
I have found in the myriad of lower performing gliders.
I've really enjoyed having the 2-33 to get students to solo
very fast, but yes, I agree it is an incomplete transition
ship. But at the low price, it is easy to have a variety of
other tools, and so this hasn't been a limitation for me.
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >, > wrote:
>Damned right. I want to drive the price down low enough that I can
>make a profit selling them to aluminum recycling plants.
>
>As soon as they learn how to recycle epoxy and fiberglass the PWs will
>go too.

ROFLMAO.

c'mon Liam. Why are you holding back? Don't be shy.
Tell us how you REALLY feel.
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Charles Yeates]

> Partially true,but it's part of the game and rigging/de-reigging is part of
> the game. You can say the same thing about most of the 2 seaters currently
> used for training, that is, they dicourage landing anywhere they can't be
> towed out of because they are such a pain to take apart and put together.

Obviously you have never seen my wee wife and I rig and derig our PW-6U
-- alone -- in 20 minutes. In fact we use our trailer as a hangar and
so assemble each flying day -- no big Deal!!

[Bill Daniels]

"Charles Yeates" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Partially true,but it's part of the game and rigging/de-reigging is part
of
> > the game. You can say the same thing about most of the 2 seaters
currently
> > used for training, that is, they dicourage landing anywhere they can't
be
> > towed out of because they are such a pain to take apart and put
together.
>
> Obviously you have never seen my wee wife and I rig and derig our PW-6U
> -- alone -- in 20 minutes. In fact we use our trailer as a hangar and
> so assemble each flying day -- no big Deal!!
>

I can confirm that. I've watched Charlie rig and de-rig the PW-6 and it
looks as easy as any 15 meter single seater. It would make a great 2-seat
XC trainer.

Bill Daniels

[Nyal Williams]

The best arguments for the 2-33 are its ruggedness,
low price, and quick time to solo. It most likely
holds people back who don't move on to something else
right away. That is not a problem if the club/fbo
has the proper gliders to move on to quickly.

We must now pose the question 'Can a club or FBO afford
such a fleet?' That depends on a lot of variables,
but it is certainly imaginable. Nowadays, the 2-33
serves somewhat the same function as a flight simulator;
it can be the basis of some cheap/quick initial learning.


There are some people who don't really aspire to X/C
flying or who can't afford either the time or the money
to do anything else than an occasional flight - perhaps
once a month for the season. These particular people
are not held back by the
2-33; instead of limiting them, it gives them a limited
opportunity they might not have otherwise. Don't forget
that the infrequent flyer will probably be safer in
the 2-33 than in something slicker.




At 22:18 27 August 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>Robertmudd1u wrote:
>>
>>>Do you feel the 2-33 has caused your progress in soaring
>>>to be less than it
>>would have been if you had learned in something else,...
>>
>>As a CFIG for over 30 years and with time in almost
>>every model of trainer
>>produced in that time span, I have to answer 'yes'
>>to this question. The 2-33s
>>not only retards the individual progress but also the
>>progress of the sport in
>>general.
>
>In my case, not so. If it weren't for the 2 x 2-33s
>and the 1-26,
>my club wouldn't have had money to buy 5 seats in other
>gliders.
>
>Without the five seats, and the business they give
>him, the
>tow pilot would have moved away a long time ago to
>a golfing
>resort.
>
>And then, no tows for the rest of the glass ships...
>
>More tows always = better. I seldom fly the 2-33 (I
>prefer
>the Blanik because I don't generally do primary
>training). But I'm very happy those 5 seats fly all
>the time
>because it keeps our tuggie happy, and therefore our
>tow rates down.
>--
>
>------------+
>Mark Boyd
>Avenal, California, USA
>

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Charles Yeates > wrote:

> > Partially true,but it's part of the game and rigging/de-reigging is part of
> > the game. You can say the same thing about most of the 2 seaters currently
> > used for training, that is, they dicourage landing anywhere they can't be
> > towed out of because they are such a pain to take apart and put together.
>
> Obviously you have never seen my wee wife and I rig and derig our PW-6U
> -- alone -- in 20 minutes. In fact we use our trailer as a hangar and
> so assemble each flying day -- no big Deal!!

The DG1000 here lives in its trailer also. I find the wings a tad heavy
for two people (and I've only been on the tip end so far) but it seems
to go together easily enough.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Michael]

"Gary Boggs" > wrote
> It's hard to beat the 1-26 for a fun day on the ridge. If you haven't flown
> one for a while, you should go rent one. They are an absolute blast to fly.
> It's the most maneuverable ship I've ever flown.

I used to love the 1-26 when I first flew it, but then I flew a Ka-8.
Just as docile, just as old, just as cheap to buy - and a better
flying ship in every way.

Michael

[Eric Greenwell]

Pete Reinhart wrote:

>>"So what" is big problem. A hard to derig and retrieve glider really
>>discourages a student from even contemplating cross-country unless he
>>can be sure of landing at airports for an aero retrieve, and the low
>>performance means it is impractical to stay within reach of airports.
>>Practically speaking, it means most students won't take a 2-33 away from
>>the home airport.
>>
>
> Partially true,but it's part of the game and rigging/de-reigging is part of
> the game.

It's not partially true, it's entirely true. If the "game" is a huge
pain in the butt, people won't play it.

You can say the same thing about most of the 2seaters currently
> used for training, that is, they dicourage landing anywhere they can't be
> towed out of because they are such a pain to take apart and put together.

I have said the same thing about other 2 seaters, including the Blanik
our club had, BUT if the glider has enough performance to easily stay
within range of airports as it goes cross-country, then pilots are more
willing to fly it cross-country. This is far harder to do in most places
if you are flying a 2-33; even a Blanik makes it noticeably easier.

This "concept" applies well beyond students in low/medium performance
gliders: many (probably most nowadays) pilots fly their high performance
ships so they can land at an airport if they can't stay up, so they can
get an aero retrieve instead of a ground retrieve. Pilots of big Open
class gliders especially hate to land in a field, because they are such
beasts to pack out. What you fly very much affects how you fly.

>>I don't have anything to sell and I don't have the opinion that only a
>>European glider is worthy of my effort to fly it, but I still echo
>>Robert's comments. Please stick with responding to what a person says
>>instead of disparaging motives you can only speculate about.
>>
>>--I was entirely responding to what he said and I disagree with the tone
>
> of his comments; it is also my privilege to speculate on whatever I care to.

Privilege or not, it still detracts from the discussion to make
unfounded, gratuitous comments about other pilots. In this particular
case, it seemed especially egregious, given Robert's substantial
contributions to bringing the Genesis to the market. Perhaps you recall
the Genesis was not a European design?


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Jack]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> If you were a truly excellent instructor, you would realize how much the
> trainer affects what you can teach.

So then, what do you excellent instructors prefer as a type for initial training, or
what would you want to see a new pilot get into immediately after his time in the 2-33?


Jack

[Vaughn]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
>
> I used to love the 1-26 when I first flew it, but then I flew a Ka-8.
> Just as docile, just as old, just as cheap to buy - and a better
> flying ship in every way.

...and 4 notches better on L/D but with a wooden wing. Not sure I would
want to tie one outside in South Florida, something that is no problem with a
1-26.

Vaughn

[Jack]

wrote:

> As soon as they learn how to recycle epoxy and fiberglass the PWs will
> go too.

You must be one'a them trolls, Doodle.

What I hate is those ugly Discii-clones. They're all the same boring color and you can't
tell where the hell you're going to land when you look out the front window, because the
glide angle is so damn flat. It beats me how anybody can learn anything in one of those.

When I'm in the pattern in a good old 2-33 I just look down at a point about half way to
the horizon and I know I can hit it every time. And I never have to worry about finding
a thermal to get back home again because the breeze here in IL always keeps me real
close to the airport.

Now, next week I'm going to try Fred's PW5 and I expect to get a little farther out,
because I hear they are real easy to take apart and put together again, if I should
happen to have to walk it out to the road a piece at a time. Since those PW5 wings are
so short, I can get my wife to pick-up tow me back into the air as many times as it
takes to get back home -- as long as the Sheriff's boys don't catch us doing it in the
road. Just try that with one of those Discii! You'll bust them long wings right off on a
county road sign or a fence post before you get half way airborne.

When they do figure out how to recycle that epoxy & fiberglass stuff, we can make a
whole bunch of little PW5s out of a few of those big Kraut ships, and that will be good
for the sport as it will help keep prices down. They better hurry too, 'cause I hear the
sun light and those Ultraviolet-type death rays are eating up all that pretty smooth
glass just like mice in the grain.

We got a 1-26 out in the shed that's been in the family for more than thirty years now,
but Uncle Jim says they are too easy to fly and they'll spoil a pilot for anything else.
I figure I'm going to wait until I get real old & feeble before I take it up, so by then
it should suit me pretty well. Another thirty years should do it.

I read the other day where Paul Schweizer, a guy who did more for soaring in the US than
just about anybody, died recently. He and his brothers sold their first glider a few
years before Pearl Harbor, and most people in this country who have flown gliders at all
have probably flown in a Schweizer, especially when they were just starting out. That
means plenty of our soaring champions as well as guys like me have spent some time in
those American metal beauties before they got their heads turned by the Loreleis from
the Fatherland. In fact there's still some records set in 1-26s that have yet to be
broken by them slippery white ships, like Paul Bikle's altitude gain back in '61 of
42,305 ft out in the California desert in an E-model just like ours. I read it in one of
them SSA magazines we got in the outhouse.


Jack

[Eric Greenwell]

Jack wrote:

In fact there's still some
> records set in 1-26s that have yet to be broken by them slippery white
> ships, like Paul Bikle's altitude gain back in '61 of 42,305 ft out in
> the California desert in an E-model just like ours. I read it in one of
> them SSA magazines we got in the outhouse.

According to the FAI, the record was set in a 1-23E. Still, closer to a
1-26 than to a fiberglass glider.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Jack]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> According to the FAI, the record was set in a 1-23E. Still, closer to a
> 1-26 than to a fiberglass glider.

Yeah, you're right -- must have been a fly spot on the page. Some of those magazines
have been around awhile.

I see where there's a famous movie star 1-23H for sale in NY, for only $11,000, but
that's a long ways from the CA desert.


Jack

[Mark James Boyd]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>>
>> Partially true,but it's part of the game and rigging/de-reigging is part of
>> the game.
>
>It's not partially true, it's entirely true. If the "game" is a huge
>pain in the butt, people won't play it.
>
>This "concept" applies well beyond students in low/medium performance
>gliders: many (probably most nowadays) pilots fly their high performance
>ships so they can land at an airport if they can't stay up, so they can
>get an aero retrieve instead of a ground retrieve. Pilots of big Open
>class gliders especially hate to land in a field, because they are such
>beasts to pack out. What you fly very much affects how you fly.

Well said. I must say that the PW-5 and the Russia both were just
inexpensive enough and just easy enough to take apart and
just with short enough wingspan that I was very comfortable
flying them X-C. One of our members even landed out in a field in
the PW-5, and it was simply a non-event.

At this stage of my experience level, I'm actually happier with
a worse L/D, lower price, and something easier to land in a narrow
field and trailer.

If I have more L/D, knowing myself, I'm just going to fly in
an area with landouts futher apart, and will still end up landing
out the exact same amount. But at a greater cost.

So for me, cheap, easily replaced 80 pound wings is a HUGE advantage,
if only mentally. With more confidence about landout selections,
I'm sure this will change. Right now I've just been surprised by the
dozens of times I thought something looked like a good landout from
3000 feet, and from 1000 feet it was a complete minefield.

Grapevines, leafless trees, gradually undulating terrain,
low roadside fences, misjudged narrowness, misjudged length,
have all been surprises for me on practice approaches to landout.
I've been chagrined at how challenging it is to truly find
a top notch landable strip in some areas...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Graeme Cant]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
....snip
> I'm pretty happy with the setup at our club. The 'el cheapo
> 2-33s get students to solo fast. Then the 1-26 adds some variety.
> Then the L-13 Blanik shows them spins and some complexity
> (since we can train gear and some flap procedures).

Slightly off-topic but...
I'm puzzled why you wouldn't have two Blaniks. Tell students to ignore
the pink and black handles and you have a no-flap, fixed-gear trainer
(if you think that's a good idea). The rest of the world soloes
students from Blaniks about as rapidly as the US does from 2-33s (some
of them even put the gear up and down) and uses them to go further.

Are Blaniks expensive in the US? They sell for the equivalent of about
$US8k here. How does that compare with a 2-33? Could we make a profit
exporting some to you? Low mileage, one careful owner since 1965, only
winched 24,500 times?

The interesting thing is that the Blanik design is about 50 years old,
not 40!

Cheers,
Graeme Cant

[Mark James Boyd]

Graeme Cant > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>...snip
>> I'm pretty happy with the setup at our club. The 'el cheapo
>> 2-33s get students to solo fast. Then the 1-26 adds some variety.
>> Then the L-13 Blanik shows them spins and some complexity
>> (since we can train gear and some flap procedures).
>
>I'm puzzled why you wouldn't have two Blaniks. Tell students to ignore
>the pink and black handles and you have a no-flap, fixed-gear trainer
>(if you think that's a good idea). The rest of the world soloes
>students from Blaniks about as rapidly as the US does from 2-33s

Have your students ever damaged one? Does your aerotow training
take more than ten flights for transitioning power pilots?
Have you ever had a student fail to heed your "ignore" advice and
put in flaps instead, destroying the Blanik?

The USAF seems to damage more than a few. They are, in fact,
taildraggers and if the tail isn't kept down after landing then
it slams down. Two Blaniks (in the same club) that I know of were
destroyed by students who in haste used the flap handle as
if it were a spoiler handle.

But with the proper training...LOL. More words = more time.
More time = more time.

The kicker is the insurance company. The insurance costs more
for the same # of hours. And in the US, many experimentals have in the
limitations "must have a pilots license for category and class."
So as an experimental, some Blanik's simply can't be used as
trainers. And as experimentals, they can't be used "for hire"
without a specific exemption.

And 0 US fatalities for 2-33 in 25 years. 6 US fatalities in
L-13 during that time, none of which would have happened in
a 2-33.

2 x stall spin (the 2-33 is almost impossible to stall, even to demo it)

1 suicide on a "ride" (2-33 upright seating means CFI just puts hand over
front seater's mouth and pinches nose. Front seater releases stick,
and bingo, back to CFI control.)

1 too fast overshot landing (2-33 is never accused of being too fast).

1 hit photographer bystander (2-33 landing too slow to hurt anyone,
and too ugly to take pictures of anyway)

1 ATP without a glider rating, 200 ft rope break (hey, man, a trained
ape could land a 2-33. One 2-33 accident report has a solo pilot
who passes out in flight and wakes up with minor injuries after the crash)

>Are Blaniks expensive in the US? They sell for the equivalent of about
>$US8k here. How does that compare with a 2-33? Could we make a profit
>exporting some to you?

I've seen them for $10k frequently here. And they are great
gliders for that, but the 2-33 is about the same price, but
less maint. Just because you don't use the flaps or gear,
the mechanic still has to inspect them here in the US. = $$$$

>Low mileage, one careful owner since 1965, only
>winched 24,500 times?

Try high mileage, many abusive owners, aerotowed umpteen times,
parts easy to find in the US, crashed on every landing, but with
no injuries and no damage found on the glider. A 2-33 is a tank.

>The interesting thing is that the Blanik design is about 50 years old,
>not 40!

Hey, I love the Blanik. But for solo of someone who's never flown
a glider, for sheer time to solo I'll always use a 2-33.
I guess the 2-33 just is a more modern technology...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Ian Cant]

At 23:36 29 August 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:

>2 x stall spin (the 2-33 is almost impossible to stall,
>even to demo it)


Mark,
The 2-33 is very hard to stall in a convincing
way, especially with forwardish CGs. and it may self-recover
so well that fully-developed spins are impossible.
But I would be happy to show you how you can demonstrate
a fairly dramatic departure from controlled flight...

All aircraft can bite. Good trainers [like the
2-33] need some provocation.

Ian

[Graeme Cant]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> Graeme Cant wrote:
>>I'm puzzled why you wouldn't have two Blaniks. Tell students to ignore
>>the pink and black handles and you have a no-flap, fixed-gear trainer
>>(if you think that's a good idea). The rest of the world soloes
>>students from Blaniks about as rapidly as the US does from 2-33s
>
> Have your students ever damaged one?

No (crossed fingers!).

> Does your aerotow training
> take more than ten flights for transitioning power pilots?

We winch.

> Have you ever had a student fail to heed your "ignore" advice and
> put in flaps instead, destroying the Blanik?

No. We don't actually say 'ignore'. We explain their use, tell them to
check they're up before launch and landing and "We'll get to use them
later". Then the instructor does what he's there for.

> The USAF seems to damage more than a few.

Yes. As Wellington said about the Guards(?) "I don't know if they scare
the enemy, but by God they scare me."

>They are, in fact, taildraggers

Yep. Whole lotta gliders just like that.

>and if the tail isn't kept down after landing then it slams down.

Not in my experience. But why wouldn't you keep it down anyhow?

> Two Blaniks (in the same club) that I know of were
> destroyed by students who in haste used the flap handle as
> if it were a spoiler handle.

That's a new one to me. Students confuse them occasionally but they're
not normally making the selection (between flap and brake) at a high
workload time so no big deal. Solo or dual?

> But with the proper training...LOL. More words = more time.
> More time = more time.

> The kicker is the insurance company. The insurance costs more
> for the same # of hours. And in the US, many experimentals have in the
> limitations "must have a pilots license for category and class."
> So as an experimental, some Blanik's simply can't be used as
> trainers. And as experimentals, they can't be used "for hire"
> without a specific exemption.

So certification and licensing rules (=insurance costs) are a major
reason for the Blanik not being a cheap trainer in the US?

> And 0 US fatalities for 2-33 in 25 years. 6 US fatalities in
> L-13 during that time, none of which would have happened in
> a 2-33.

The real measure is the overall accident rate. A trainer that kills
nobody but also teaches nothing (so they have accidents in other
aircraft later) shouldn't be given credit for its 'kindness'.

> 2 x stall spin (the 2-33 is almost impossible to stall, even to demo it)
>
> 1 suicide on a "ride" (2-33 upright seating means CFI just puts hand over
> front seater's mouth and pinches nose. Front seater releases stick,
> and bingo, back to CFI control.)
>
> 1 too fast overshot landing (2-33 is never accused of being too fast).
>
> 1 hit photographer bystander (2-33 landing too slow to hurt anyone,
> and too ugly to take pictures of anyway)
>
> 1 ATP without a glider rating, 200 ft rope break (hey, man, a trained
> ape could land a 2-33. One 2-33 accident report has a solo pilot
> who passes out in flight and wakes up with minor injuries after the crash)

You seem to be saying that people don't really learn to fly on a 2-33.
I don't believe US training standards are that bad.

>>Are Blaniks expensive in the US? They sell for the equivalent of about
>>$US8k here. How does that compare with a 2-33? Could we make a profit
>>exporting some to you?
>
> I've seen them for $10k frequently here. And they are great
> gliders for that, but the 2-33 is about the same price, but
> less maint. Just because you don't use the flaps or gear,
> the mechanic still has to inspect them here in the US. = $$$$

We inspect them too and still find them to be fine, cheap trainers.
>
>>Low mileage, one careful owner since 1965, only
>>winched 24,500 times?
>
>
> Try high mileage, many abusive owners, aerotowed umpteen times,

Most of the Blaniks in Oz would be around the 15-20,000 hour mark. Our
(now sold) grandmother with 25k winch launches only has about 14000
hours but that's high fatigue cycles. How many aerotows equals 25k
winch launches? And why do 2-33 owners abuse their gliders?

> parts easy to find in the US,

Yep. That makes sense.

>crashed on every landing, but with
> no injuries and no damage found on the glider. A 2-33 is a tank.

I just don't believe the standard of students and instructors varies
that much from country to country. I believe Blaniks get treated just
as badly as 2-33s and stand up to that treatment just as well.

>>The interesting thing is that the Blanik design is about 50 years old,
>>not 40!
>
> Hey, I love the Blanik. But for solo of someone who's never flown
> a glider, for sheer time to solo I'll always use a 2-33.

But isn't the aim to get them a licence, not just send them solo? In
that case, even if it takes a few more flights to solo (which I'm not
convinced of), in the end isn't it the same total number of flights to
licence test?

> I guess the 2-33 just is a more modern technology...
Anything's possible. :)

Graeme


> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark Boyd
> Avenal, California, USA

[Bill Daniels]

Good post. This is exactly my experience in the US. Blaniks are a lot more
rugged than they look with the exception of the tailwheel/skid. Some damage
is due to operators not keeping the main wheel strut inflated. Given a
modest investment in maintenance, Blaniks live long lives.

BTW, 2-33 tailwheels/tipwheels don't last that long either.

The 2-33 is a state-of-the-art 1933 glider - manufactured in the 1960's.
The 2-33 is a passable trainer for teaching people to fly vintage gliders.
Unfortunately, most people want to fly glass.

Neither the L-13 or L23 are perfect trainers but they are pretty darn good.
They are not harder to fly than the 2-33, just different in a positive way.
Student pilot will learn to fly whatever they train in but they will forever
retain those early impressions of how a glider handles. Blanik trained
pilots will always expect that a glider will spin if mishandled, 2-33
trained pilots won't.

As a trainer, the 2-33 should be judged by the accident rate in the NEXT
glider the pilot flies. Overall, that doesn't look too good.

Bill Daniels

"Graeme Cant" > wrote in message
...
> Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
> > Graeme Cant wrote:
> >>I'm puzzled why you wouldn't have two Blaniks. Tell students to ignore
> >>the pink and black handles and you have a no-flap, fixed-gear trainer
> >>(if you think that's a good idea). The rest of the world soloes
> >>students from Blaniks about as rapidly as the US does from 2-33s
> >
> > Have your students ever damaged one?
>
> No (crossed fingers!).
>
> > Does your aerotow training
> > take more than ten flights for transitioning power pilots?
>
> We winch.
>
> > Have you ever had a student fail to heed your "ignore" advice and
> > put in flaps instead, destroying the Blanik?
>
> No. We don't actually say 'ignore'. We explain their use, tell them to
> check they're up before launch and landing and "We'll get to use them
> later". Then the instructor does what he's there for.
>
> > The USAF seems to damage more than a few.
>
> Yes. As Wellington said about the Guards(?) "I don't know if they scare
> the enemy, but by God they scare me."
>
> >They are, in fact, taildraggers
>
> Yep. Whole lotta gliders just like that.
>
> >and if the tail isn't kept down after landing then it slams down.
>
> Not in my experience. But why wouldn't you keep it down anyhow?
>
> > Two Blaniks (in the same club) that I know of were
> > destroyed by students who in haste used the flap handle as
> > if it were a spoiler handle.
>
> That's a new one to me. Students confuse them occasionally but they're
> not normally making the selection (between flap and brake) at a high
> workload time so no big deal. Solo or dual?
>
> > But with the proper training...LOL. More words = more time.
> > More time = more time.
>
> > The kicker is the insurance company. The insurance costs more
> > for the same # of hours. And in the US, many experimentals have in the
> > limitations "must have a pilots license for category and class."
> > So as an experimental, some Blanik's simply can't be used as
> > trainers. And as experimentals, they can't be used "for hire"
> > without a specific exemption.
>
> So certification and licensing rules (=insurance costs) are a major
> reason for the Blanik not being a cheap trainer in the US?
>
> > And 0 US fatalities for 2-33 in 25 years. 6 US fatalities in
> > L-13 during that time, none of which would have happened in
> > a 2-33.
>
> The real measure is the overall accident rate. A trainer that kills
> nobody but also teaches nothing (so they have accidents in other
> aircraft later) shouldn't be given credit for its 'kindness'.
>
> > 2 x stall spin (the 2-33 is almost impossible to stall, even to demo it)
> >
> > 1 suicide on a "ride" (2-33 upright seating means CFI just puts hand
over
> > front seater's mouth and pinches nose. Front seater releases stick,
> > and bingo, back to CFI control.)
> >
> > 1 too fast overshot landing (2-33 is never accused of being too fast).
> >
> > 1 hit photographer bystander (2-33 landing too slow to hurt anyone,
> > and too ugly to take pictures of anyway)
> >
> > 1 ATP without a glider rating, 200 ft rope break (hey, man, a trained
> > ape could land a 2-33. One 2-33 accident report has a solo pilot
> > who passes out in flight and wakes up with minor injuries after the
crash)
>
> You seem to be saying that people don't really learn to fly on a 2-33.
> I don't believe US training standards are that bad.
>
> >>Are Blaniks expensive in the US? They sell for the equivalent of about
> >>$US8k here. How does that compare with a 2-33? Could we make a profit
> >>exporting some to you?
> >
> > I've seen them for $10k frequently here. And they are great
> > gliders for that, but the 2-33 is about the same price, but
> > less maint. Just because you don't use the flaps or gear,
> > the mechanic still has to inspect them here in the US. = $$$$
>
> We inspect them too and still find them to be fine, cheap trainers.
> >
> >>Low mileage, one careful owner since 1965, only
> >>winched 24,500 times?
> >
> >
> > Try high mileage, many abusive owners, aerotowed umpteen times,
>
> Most of the Blaniks in Oz would be around the 15-20,000 hour mark. Our
> (now sold) grandmother with 25k winch launches only has about 14000
> hours but that's high fatigue cycles. How many aerotows equals 25k
> winch launches? And why do 2-33 owners abuse their gliders?
>
> > parts easy to find in the US,
>
> Yep. That makes sense.
>
> >crashed on every landing, but with
> > no injuries and no damage found on the glider. A 2-33 is a tank.
>
> I just don't believe the standard of students and instructors varies
> that much from country to country. I believe Blaniks get treated just
> as badly as 2-33s and stand up to that treatment just as well.
>
> >>The interesting thing is that the Blanik design is about 50 years old,
> >>not 40!
> >
> > Hey, I love the Blanik. But for solo of someone who's never flown
> > a glider, for sheer time to solo I'll always use a 2-33.
>
> But isn't the aim to get them a licence, not just send them solo? In
> that case, even if it takes a few more flights to solo (which I'm not
> convinced of), in the end isn't it the same total number of flights to
> licence test?
>
> > I guess the 2-33 just is a more modern technology...
> Anything's possible. :)
>
> Graeme
>
>
> > --
> >
> > ------------+
> > Mark Boyd
> > Avenal, California, USA
>

[Michael]

"Vaughn" > wrote
> > I used to love the 1-26 when I first flew it, but then I flew a Ka-8.
> > Just as docile, just as old, just as cheap to buy - and a better
> > flying ship in every way.
>
> ...and 4 notches better on L/D but with a wooden wing. Not sure I would
> want to tie one outside in South Florida, something that is no problem with a
> 1-26.

Outside tiedown for rag-and-tube aircraft is bad enough when it's dry
- then you just destroy the fabric. You ever recover a fuselage with
fabric? I have. It's not complicated, but oh man is it ever a bitch
to do. For the effort you put into recovering the fuselage once, you
could have built a primitive hangar.

In Florida, it's worse. Salty rain gets into the fuselage and the
tubes rust. Then, when you take the fabric off, you have a huge
amount of sanding and priming to do, and likely some welding as well.

The 1-26E is not so bad - it only has fabric tailfeathers, and those
you can recover in a long weekend.

Outside tiedown is something you really should only do on all-metal
aircraft, and then only inland.

Michael

[Kirk Stant]

Nyal Williams > wrote in message >...

(snip) Nowadays, the 2-33 serves somewhat the same function as a
flight simulator; it can be the basis of some cheap/quick initial
learning.

That's it! That explains everything! That's why no one ever gets
hurt in a 2-33 - THEY AREN'T REALLY FLYING! It's just a simulator!
We should paint them all blue and put the instructor's seat on the
outside, next to the student.

I love it!

Kirk

[Bruce Greeff]

Have to agree on the Blanik being a better trainer than vintage wood/tube and
fabric. From experience of a relatively recent learning experience, I am still a
relative beginner having only soloed two years ago, so some of the impressions
are fresh.

Learned to fly in a vintage Bergfalke II/55 (1956 - comparable but still better
than a 2-33 by all accounts) Transition to the Blanik was quite a revelation,
"this is easy"
"there is such a thing as a responsive glider"
"so it is possible to overcome adverse yaw - always"
And then there was the "OK - I thought I knew about stalls and spins, this is
quite different"

That said the K13 showed me that it is possible to have most of the
responsiveness, just not the higher wing loading and fast acceleration.

That low wing loading and dragginess limit the older planes utility as a trainer
too. As an example, in spring there are days when the wind is strong enough to
make it unsafe to fly the lower wing loading fabric planes. The Blanik then
works overtime.

First flight with my Cirrus was exciting enough. Going straight from the 1950s
trainer to the glass would have been a difficult gap to cross. As it was I took
a few flights in a Grob Twin II with an instructor before trying solo in a glass
ship.

My view - the docile old Bergie (2-33) is wonderful to fly, climbs on the
weakest day, and demands accuracy or the yaw string will be all over the place.
But flying it hardly engenders confidence in one's ability to handle a high
performance ship. And rightly so, It is still a little disconcerting how slowly
things happen when I fly the Bergie again (except for the steepness of the glide
angle). The Blanik is much closer in terms of feel even if the speed is lower.
And I am comparing them to a 1970s technology single seater, hardly a Ventus 2
or LS8 or substitute your choice here...

As for toughness, they survive our very rough strip and exclusively winch launch
operations reasonably well. The tail wheel is prone to damage if you repeatedly
land tail first or ground loop. But then, that is what the noisy baggage in the
back seat is for. Teaching students to make well judged low energy landings - we
prefer main and tail together but certainly never tail first. A trainer that is
"unbreakable" may tend to develop flying habits guaranteed to break more normal
airplanes. Habits are easier to learn than modify so I think time to competent
solo pilot is impeded by the limitations and inadequacies of the vintage trainer
fleet. Conversely, once you can fly one of the oldies well with their stability
and control harmonisation challenges you a better pilot. Perhaps it comes down
to variety rather than individual type characteristics. I know my progress has
been helped by a conscious effort to fly at different fields and in different
types.

As an example of habit problems - From comments on this group it appears the
most common approach taught in the USA is to fly the 2-33 onto the ground.
Apparently it is so slow and draggy that it is desirable to carry as much energy
as possible to the round out - so they tend to learn to leave the flare out -
then it becomes the standard taught. Finesse is one thing, but all that energy
has to go somewhere and most glass will not take kindly to this.

Bruce


Bill Daniels wrote:
> Good post. This is exactly my experience in the US. Blaniks are a lot more
> rugged than they look with the exception of the tailwheel/skid. Some damage
> is due to operators not keeping the main wheel strut inflated. Given a
> modest investment in maintenance, Blaniks live long lives.
SNIP

[Kirk Stant]

Bruce Greeff > wrote in message >...

> As an example of habit problems - From comments on this group it appears the
> most common approach taught in the USA is to fly the 2-33 onto the ground.
> Apparently it is so slow and draggy that it is desirable to carry as much energy as possible to the round out - so they tend to learn to leave the flare out - then it becomes the standard taught. Finesse is one thing, but all that energy has to go somewhere and most glass will not take kindly to this.
>
> Bruce

Close. The 2-33 has an achilles' heel - a weak tailwheel - that will
not tolerate low-energy tail-first or main-and-tail landings. So
pilots are taught to fly it on the runway level, touching down on the
main wheel only, usually still a bit above stall speed. Kind of like
a wheel landing in a tailwheel powerplane.

Note that you can land a 2-33 nice and slow, by holding it off, but
that is not trained often for fear of that weak tailwheel.

So now you have a student taught to land by "flaring" to a level
attitude, then waiting for the glider to settle on it's mainwheel,
then slowing by using the skid if necessary, who now tries to land a
G-103 for the first time without a comprehensive briefing: Level off
(a bit fast probably), touch down on the main (maybe a bit firmly due
to the touchy divebrakes), then a wicked bounce as the nosewheel
bounces off the ground, and the Grob jumps back in the air - and the
cycle repeats, more violently each time! YeeHA - there goes the
nosewheel, and maybe the tailwheel too. Seen it happen a few times.

Of course, if all you fly are Schweitzers (except the 1-35, maybe),
that technique will work fine (in the 2-22, 1-23, 1-26, 1-34 and 2-32,
for example).

Too bad for the Grob-103 fleet, however!

Kirk

[Bruce Greeff]

Kirk Stant wrote:
> Bruce Greeff > wrote in message >...
>
>
>>As an example of habit problems - From comments on this group it appears the
>>most common approach taught in the USA is to fly the 2-33 onto the ground.
>>Apparently it is so slow and draggy that it is desirable to carry as much energy as possible to the round out - so they tend to learn to leave the flare out - then it becomes the standard taught. Finesse is one thing, but all that energy has to go somewhere and most glass will not take kindly to this.
>>
>>Bruce
>
>
> Close. The 2-33 has an achilles' heel - a weak tailwheel - that will
> not tolerate low-energy tail-first or main-and-tail landings. So
> pilots are taught to fly it on the runway level, touching down on the
> main wheel only, usually still a bit above stall speed. Kind of like
> a wheel landing in a tailwheel powerplane.
>
> Note that you can land a 2-33 nice and slow, by holding it off, but
> that is not trained often for fear of that weak tailwheel.
>
> So now you have a student taught to land by "flaring" to a level
> attitude, then waiting for the glider to settle on it's mainwheel,
> then slowing by using the skid if necessary, who now tries to land a
> G-103 for the first time without a comprehensive briefing: Level off
> (a bit fast probably), touch down on the main (maybe a bit firmly due
> to the touchy divebrakes), then a wicked bounce as the nosewheel
> bounces off the ground, and the Grob jumps back in the air - and the
> cycle repeats, more violently each time! YeeHA - there goes the
> nosewheel, and maybe the tailwheel too. Seen it happen a few times.
>
> Of course, if all you fly are Schweitzers (except the 1-35, maybe),
> that technique will work fine (in the 2-22, 1-23, 1-26, 1-34 and 2-32,
> for example).
>
> Too bad for the Grob-103 fleet, however!
>
> Kirk
Hi Kirk

That is pretty much what I was getting at - The 2-33 is held as a paragon of
virtue and the habits it teaches result in damage to the next glider flown. As
logic would have it this seems to result in one of the toughest gliders around
being derided for "always being in the repair shop"

Around here (and most places) the G103 is regarded as one of the strongest and
easiest to fly. Surely if low time pilots are regularly breaking them you should
look for what is wrong with what they are taught?

Bruce

[Garret]

I didn't know that the 2-33 had that weak of a tailwheel. After
instructing in them for the last 5 years (4yrs 357days), 7 days a week
with around 1800hrs in the back of them. Soloing 50+ students in
them, while only allowing low energy landings at our school. I have
watched 1 get broken, not from landing, but a careless student ground
handeling it.

Garret

[Hank Nixon]

(Garret) wrote in message >...
> I didn't know that the 2-33 had that weak of a tailwheel. After
> instructing in them for the last 5 years (4yrs 357days), 7 days a week
> with around 1800hrs in the back of them. Soloing 50+ students in
> them, while only allowing low energy landings at our school. I have
> watched 1 get broken, not from landing, but a careless student ground
> handeling it.
>
> Garret

I have to completely agree with Garret. My observations from 3000 hr+
and about 8000 training flights is that ground abuse is the usual
cause of any tailhweel problem.
As to it causing bad habits- the instructor is the issue. A properly
held off, slow landing as taught properly in a 2-33 or other glider,
translates well into skills for the next ship.
UH

[Kirk Stant]

(Garret) wrote in message >...
> I didn't know that the 2-33 had that weak of a tailwheel. After
> instructing in them for the last 5 years (4yrs 357days), 7 days a week
> with around 1800hrs in the back of them. Soloing 50+ students in
> them, while only allowing low energy landings at our school. I have
> watched 1 get broken, not from landing, but a careless student ground
> handeling it.
>
> Garret

Interesting. I've been flying 2-33s for way too many years to admit
and was ALWAYS taught or told to "wheel it on" and avoid touching the
tailwheel. Now I prefer to land 2-33s as slow as I can, so I try to
get the tail as low as I can before touching down, while avoiding
having the tailwheel contact the ground if possible. There is so
little clearance between that little hockey puck and the aft fuselage
that out here on our rocky runway you are asking for damage if you
drag the tail into the ground!

Do your 2-33s have the spring/pivoting tailwheel mod? Those look like
they would have no problem with main-and-tail touchdowns.

But what I see students (and experienced pilots) doing regularly is
the "high-speed 2-33 fly it onto the ground and come to a screeching
halt in a cloud of dust on the nose skid" landing. Ugly and noisy -
when you should be rolling to a gentle stop with full aft stick and
the nose off the ground until almost stopped. (Granted, much easier
with two up and the CG a bit aft)

But hey, you can't break 'em, so who cares how you land 'em.

Kirk

[Mark James Boyd]

Graeme Cant > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> Graeme Cant wrote:
>>
>> Have your students ever damaged one?
>
>No (crossed fingers!).
We haven't either, but we use it AFTER basic training in the 2-33...

>>They are, in fact, taildraggers
>
>Yep. Whole lotta gliders just like that.
This part does take additional training to achieve low damage chances.
Just like a power plane taildragger. Which is why insurers require
10+ hours in a taildragger and 0 in a Cezzna 152...

>>and if the tail isn't kept down after landing then it slams down.
>
>Not in my experience. But why wouldn't you keep it down anyhow?

Because it isn't there on it's own. In a taildragger, there are still
things going on after landing.

>So certification and licensing rules (=insurance costs) are a major
>reason for the Blanik not being a cheap trainer in the US?
Yes, if all the other reasons were moot, the certification as
experimental and restriction against "for hire" would probably
keep them out of the commercial gliderports (about 1/4 to 1/2 of
the US gliderports).

>> And 0 US fatalities for 2-33 in 25 years. 6 US fatalities in
>> L-13 during that time, none of which would have happened in
>> a 2-33.
>
>The real measure is the overall accident rate. A trainer that kills
>nobody but also teaches nothing (so they have accidents in other
>aircraft later) shouldn't be given credit for its 'kindness'.

Solo. I think solo is something. It gets credit for that. And it
gives the pilot the skills needed to fly a ... 2-33. So if one has only the
$$$s for a 2-33, then it's a great idea. If we were interested in
ensuring all our pilots could fly any glider proficiently before licensing
them, we'd only let people solo in a mini-nimbus, right? It isn't hard to
figure out what would happen if pilots could only get a license if they
demonstrated proficiency in a glider with flaps, retract gear, spoilers,
and ballast...

>> 2 x stall spin (the 2-33 is almost impossible to stall, even to demo it)
>>
>> 1 suicide on a "ride" (2-33 upright seating means CFI just puts hand over
>> front seater's mouth and pinches nose. Front seater releases stick,
>> and bingo, back to CFI control.)
>>
>> 1 too fast overshot landing (2-33 is never accused of being too fast).
>>
>> 1 hit photographer bystander (2-33 landing too slow to hurt anyone,
>> and too ugly to take pictures of anyway)
>>
>> 1 ATP without a glider rating, 200 ft rope break (hey, man, a trained
>> ape could land a 2-33. One 2-33 accident report has a solo pilot
>> who passes out in flight and wakes up with minor injuries after the crash)
>
>You seem to be saying that people don't really learn to fly on a 2-33.
>I don't believe US training standards are that bad.

What I say on that subject isn't important. The point is: they flew.
And they can do it again and not get hurt or damage anything. And they
can do it with passengers, without getting hurt or damaging anything.
And it didn't cost very much. You can argue whether they "learned to
fly" 'till the Millenium, but the fact is, they flew, and that is that.
The 2-33 isn't for learning to fly, or impressing anyone. It is for flying.
If you want to fly, the 2-33 is more likely to accomplish that goal than
any other glider. If you want to learn to fly, first, figure out what that
means, get 1,000,000 definitions from different people, and then pick one,
and if it requires a mini-nimbus, then good luck finding one, affording it,
finding an adequate two-seater and instructor, and getting soloed before
you get bored, broke, or old...

>Most of the Blaniks in Oz would be around the 15-20,000 hour mark. Our
>(now sold) grandmother with 25k winch launches only has about 14000
>hours but that's high fatigue cycles. How many aerotows equals 25k
>winch launches?
Well out of my experience to comment...

>And why do 2-33 owners abuse their gliders?
I didn't say they abuse them. The glider is never damaged. What I said
was they sometimes "crash" in the sense that if the same thing was done in
a glass ship, it would be damaged. I've seen people cringe at some of the
things done in a 2-33. We even had a huge laugh one time over a perfect
ground loop that didn't even touch a wingtip. In the PIK, the same think
certainly didn't get a laugh... The 2-33 never has a scratch,
and the pilot is fine. Perhaps the word is "forgiving."

>I just don't believe the standard of students and instructors varies
>that much from country to country. I believe Blaniks get treated just
>as badly as 2-33s and stand up to that treatment just as well.

Keep in mind, I'm using hyperbole to make a point. I think the
safety standards are always the same, it's just the amount of time it takes
to acheive that standard differs. As I explain to students: When I solo
them, they have an acceptable level of safety. After that, training and
currency and experience simply maintain that same level of safety,
while improving capability...

>But isn't the aim to get them a licence, not just send them solo? In
>that case, even if it takes a few more flights to solo (which I'm not
>convinced of), in the end isn't it the same total number of flights to
>licence test?
In my experience, the faster to solo = the better the chance of maintaining
interest. And even if there was no difference between the 1-26, 2-33 and
L-13 in terms of total time to license, I'd still solo them in the 2-33,
and do some after solo training in the (solo) 1-26 and L-13.
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Garret > wrote:
>I didn't know that the 2-33 had that weak of a tailwheel. After
>instructing in them for the last 5 years (4yrs 357days), 7 days a week
>with around 1800hrs in the back of them. Soloing 50+ students in
>them, while only allowing low energy landings at our school. I have
>watched 1 get broken, not from landing, but a careless student ground
>handeling it.
>
>Garret

Good for you! Like I said, the 2-33 is a great trainer to get a pilot to
solo. And cheap. Beyond that, if any pilot wants to fly a glider with
different characteristics than anything they've flown before, they
ought to do some preparation beforehand.




--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Kirk Stant > wrote:
>
>That's it! That explains everything! That's why no one ever gets
>hurt in a 2-33 - THEY AREN'T REALLY FLYING! It's just a simulator!
>We should paint them all blue and put the instructor's seat on the
>outside, next to the student.

On super windy days, one of the great things about the 2-33 is you
can get in it and stay on the ground and "fly" it just like Kirk says.
It's a real blast for early students...

What other aircraft have ONE wheel, so you can do this? :)
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Bruce Hoult]

In article <413777d6$1@darkstar>,
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

> Kirk Stant > wrote:
> >
> >That's it! That explains everything! That's why no one ever gets
> >hurt in a 2-33 - THEY AREN'T REALLY FLYING! It's just a simulator!
> >We should paint them all blue and put the instructor's seat on the
> >outside, next to the student.
>
> On super windy days, one of the great things about the 2-33 is you
> can get in it and stay on the ground and "fly" it just like Kirk says.
> It's a real blast for early students...
>
> What other aircraft have ONE wheel, so you can do this? :)

I've "flown" Blaniks on the ground on just the main wheel, while waiting
for the tow plane. For that matter I've done the same in the Janus.

-- Bruce

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Andreas Maurer]

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 22:47:20 +1200, Bruce Hoult >
wrote:


>I've "flown" Blaniks on the ground on just the main wheel, while waiting
>for the tow plane. For that matter I've done the same in the Janus.

.... please add ASK-21, DG-505 and ASH-25 for me...


Bye
Andreas

[Nyal Williams]

At 13:42 03 September 2004, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 22:47:20 +1200, Bruce Hoult
>wrote:
>
>
>>I've 'flown' Blaniks on the ground on just the main
>>wheel, while waiting
>>for the tow plane. For that matter I've done the same
>>in the Janus.
>
>.... please add ASK-21, DG-505 and ASH-25 for me...
>
>
I did it in an SG-38; so there!

[Paul Repacholi]

(Mark James Boyd) writes:

> Kirk Stant > wrote:

>>That's it! That explains everything! That's why no one ever gets
>>hurt in a 2-33 - THEY AREN'T REALLY FLYING! It's just a simulator!
>>We should paint them all blue and put the instructor's seat on the
>>outside, next to the student.

> On super windy days, one of the great things about the 2-33 is you
> can get in it and stay on the ground and "fly" it just like Kirk
> says. It's a real blast for early students...

> What other aircraft have ONE wheel, so you can do this? :)

Well, a Blanik will do that quite well, once you remember to raise the
tail.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Andreas Maurer > wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 22:47:20 +1200, Bruce Hoult >
> wrote:
>
> >I've "flown" Blaniks on the ground on just the main wheel, while waiting
> >for the tow plane. For that matter I've done the same in the Janus.
>
> ... please add ASK-21, DG-505 and ASH-25 for me...

You got the nosewheel off the ground in an ASK-21? Wow. That normally
happens during takeoff at much higher speed than getting the tail off on
a tail-dragger.

Next someone is going to say they've done this in a Grob. Or an IS28!

-- Bruce

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Bill Daniels]

"Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Andreas Maurer > wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 22:47:20 +1200, Bruce Hoult >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I've "flown" Blaniks on the ground on just the main wheel, while
waiting
> > >for the tow plane. For that matter I've done the same in the Janus.
> >
> > ... please add ASK-21, DG-505 and ASH-25 for me...
>
> You got the nosewheel off the ground in an ASK-21? Wow. That normally
> happens during takeoff at much higher speed than getting the tail off on
> a tail-dragger.
>
> Next someone is going to say they've done this in a Grob. Or an IS28!

Yup. In a G103 and an IS28B2. The wind was blowing at a good clip though.

Bill Daniels

[Robert Ehrlich]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
> ... then good luck ... getting soloed before
> you get bored, broke, or old...
>

I found a very easy way to get soloed before getting
old: start when you are already old :-)