Looking for 1-26E with trailer and some thoughts

[ken smith]

Hi,
I am currently looking for a ready to fly 1-26E in nice condition
with trailer. It looks like there is nothing really out there that
doesn't need a new paint job and perhaps some restoration.
Can anyone suggest someone who does reasonable paint and
restoration work? I am located in the Northern CA area.
Thanks

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Not to start the usual argument, but why? There are many great first generation fiberglass gliders available for the same price, much better condition, and much better performance. Everywhere you fly in Norcal your first thermal is a perilous glide away from the airport in a 1-26. I love the old 1-26, but around here I can't see it practical if you want to stay up.
John Cochrane.

[ken smith]

On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 8:58:36 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Not to start the usual argument, but why? There are many great first generation fiberglass gliders available for the same price, much better condition, and much better performance. Everywhere you fly in Norcal your first thermal is a perilous glide away from the airport in a 1-26. I love the old 1-26, but around here I can't see it practical if you want to stay up.
> John Cochrane.

Understand your point.. I will be moving to either southern CA or Nevada if that makes a diff.
Just looking for a no worries minimal set up ship. Also, just fly for fun and don't need to
accomplish anything. I don't see any glass ships, that don't have a non hinging canopy,
in the $10-12K range.

[AS]

On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 12:54:27 AM UTC-4, ken smith wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 8:58:36 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Not to start the usual argument, but why? There are many great first generation fiberglass gliders available for the same price, much better condition, and much better performance. Everywhere you fly in Norcal your first thermal is a perilous glide away from the airport in a 1-26. I love the old 1-26, but around here I can't see it practical if you want to stay up.
> > John Cochrane.
>
> Understand your point.. I will be moving to either southern CA or Nevada if that makes a diff.
> Just looking for a no worries minimal set up ship. Also, just fly for fun and don't need to
> accomplish anything. I don't see any glass ships, that don't have a non hinging canopy,
> in the $10-12K range.

There is a Ka8b on W&W. It has a hinged canopy comes with an enclosed trailer, is rigged easily and outperforms the 1-26. However, it is wood and fabric but that should not be an issue if you are in a dry environment and keep it in the trailer rather than tied up outside.

Uli
'AS'

[Guy Byars[_5_]]

There are also some very nice L-33 Solos on Wings and Wheels. All metal, enclosed trailer, hinged canopies, and not much more than a 1-26E with better performance.

[Guy Byars[_5_]]

On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 8:43:25 AM UTC-4, Guy Byars wrote:
> There are also some very nice L-33 Solos on Wings and Wheels. All metal, enclosed trailer, hinged canopies, and not much more than a 1-26E with better performance.

Also there are some very nice 1-23s on the market. Same money, more performance.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

ken smith wrote on 10/14/2020 9:54 PM:
> On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 8:58:36 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>> Not to start the usual argument, but why? There are many great first generation fiberglass gliders available for the same price, much better condition, and much better performance. Everywhere you fly in Norcal your first thermal is a perilous glide away from the airport in a 1-26. I love the old 1-26, but around here I can't see it practical if you want to stay up.
>> John Cochrane.
>
> Understand your point.. I will be moving to either southern CA or Nevada if that makes a diff.
> Just looking for a no worries minimal set up ship. Also, just fly for fun and don't need to
> accomplish anything. I don't see any glass ships, that don't have a non hinging canopy,
> in the $10-12K range.
>
The $8000 Russia has a hinging canopy. I've flown one in a contest: decent performance, very
easy ground handling. The $12000 Std Cirrus has a hinging canopy: I owned one for 3 years, flew
nicely. If you want to tie out the ship instead of rigging, the L33 Solo (also hinging canopy)
would be a good choice, I think. The drawbacks for this particular one is the open trailer, and
added difficulty of importing one from Canada.

I've owned glider with/without hinging canopies, and I would not make that a deal breaker.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[John Sinclair[_5_]]

On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 6:09:12 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> ken smith wrote on 10/14/2020 9:54 PM:
> > On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 8:58:36 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> >> Not to start the usual argument, but why? There are many great first generation fiberglass gliders available for the same price, much better condition, and much better performance. Everywhere you fly in Norcal your first thermal is a perilous glide away from the airport in a 1-26. I love the old 1-26, but around here I can't see it practical if you want to stay up.
> >> John Cochrane.

Hi Ken,
I’d agree with all the posters. The 1-26 is a fun machine, but it won’t go anywhere! They held the 1-26 nationals at Minden a few years back and most never got out of the valley! There’s an ASW-15 in Salt Lake for 7K and a H-301 Libelle at Air Sailing for 10K. I’ll give you a free look-see, but you got to bring it to me in Placerville, Ca.
JJ

[ken smith]

Thanks for all the useful feedback. I have heard that the L33 has a weak tail boom and is prone to damage
and the Std Cirrus wants to spin. Would apprecaite more info on these if you have experience wth them.

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 07:55:51 -0700, ken smith wrote:

> Thanks for all the useful feedback. I have heard that the L33 has a
> weak tail boom and is prone to damage and the Std Cirrus wants to spin.
> Would apprecaite more info on these if you have experience wth them.

Don't discount Libelles - either 201 or 301. My 201 (Std Libelle) is the
least willing to spin of any single seat glider I've flown. Light and
easy to rig and, if you put foam or felt pads on the underside of the
canopy frame at the rear, you can slide the canopy back along the
fuselage (I've not done this, but have seen pictures...).

Disadvantages? Notably weak airbrakes, long but narrow cockpit, so those
with wide shoulders may not fit in them.

More handling etc info here:
https://www.gregorie.org/gliding/libelle/h201_notes.html

Others may chip in about the 301 Open Libelle - I've never even seen one,
let alone flown it.

If you see a 205 Club Libelle at a nice price, go and look at it too.
Reasonable performance despite a fixed undercarriage. Roomy cockpit,
powerful airbrakes, hinged canopy. There's one at my club: its owners
like it a lot.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Craig Reinholt]

On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 7:55:54 AM UTC-7, ken smith wrote:
> Thanks for all the useful feedback. I have heard that the L33 has a weak tail boom and is prone to damage
> and the Std Cirrus wants to spin. Would apprecaite more info on these if you have experience wth them.

I was a partner in the L-33 for years and flew it for 100's of hours. It was a lovely flying glider. It only had 2 negatives that I had issues with. The first is the metal construction and the tow hook installation (with poor sealing) makes a very cold cockpit for your legs and feet. The second issue was the factory paint job was substandard and prone to peeling.
I've often considered (still do) buying another and have it tied down during the summer at my soaring club for a quick flying fix instead of rigging and derigging daily my ASH31.
Craig

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

It's not about ambition or big xc flights, though that bug will grab you sooner than you think. It's just about staying up. Every site I have flown west of the rockies involves a 20:1 plus glide from the first possible thermal location back to the airport. Finding a thermal within a safe glide to the airport in a 1-26 is a serious limitation. And handout options between the first thermal and the airport are usually not great.

Why is the canopy a big deal? Don't get fixated on small issues is a good piece of advice for glider buying.

Assembly of glass gliders, especially with a half-decent trailer, is much easier than any metal glider. Ask how many glass owners use a sledgehammer as part of their assembly kit! There is no reason on earth to want to tie out a 15 meter glider, which it can go in a trailer. And metal doesn't like being tied out either. (Nor do canopies).

Don't get me wrong, I love the old 1-26 and have great memories of flights in them. But for practical flying in the west, any first generation glass or gliders like the russia mentioned here are just way more practical.

John Cochrane

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

ken smith wrote on 10/15/2020 7:55 AM:
> Thanks for all the useful feedback. I have heard that the L33 has a weak tail boom and is prone to damage
> and the Std Cirrus wants to spin. Would apprecaite more info on these if you have experience wth them.
>
The wing twist was changed around serial #170 or so, much improving the spin behavior. Mine was
a later one, and it seemed quite docile, never surprising me in 500 hours. I think there is a
Std Cirrus owners group that can give details.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[Stephen Struthers]

At 14:55 15 October 2020, ken smith wrote:
Thanks for all the useful feedback. I have heard that the L33 has a
weak tail boom and is prone to damage and the Std Cirrus wants to
spin. Would appreciate more info on these if you have experience with
them.


Most aircraft will spin, some better than others but and only if you put
the incorrect control inputs. I own a standard cirrus and its very
sensitive in pitch but not prone to spinning unless I make it. I use to
own an IS29 D 2 and that had a reputation for "spinning" I spun it
unintentionally once at around 1000 ft agl when i was trying to get
away in a tight thermal and forgot to put it in thermal flap. The aircraft

responded immediately to the correct control inputs and I only lost 150
feet in altitude. The club I fly at teaches spin recovery well. I would
suggest a Cirrus is a good aircraft for you provided you get the gel coat
checked etc (same as any older glass ship really)

safe flying

[John Sinclair[_5_]]

I believe it was Dick Johnson who observed one needs a minimum of 30:1 glide ratio for successful cross country flying on a regular basis. The problem is you will hit the ground before running into the next thermal on many occasions.That was based on flat land soaring, but I find it true in the mountains as well. If you like flying the 1-26, then find an FBO that has one and rent for a while. Owning a bird involves considerable expense , insurance, maintenance, annual, tie-down charges, not to mention that gee-wiz thingie that you just must have! I flew the 1-26 for a couple of years until I could get into ownership of a 30:1 bird!
Hope this helps,
JJ

[Nicholas Kennedy]

Ken
Earlier this year I started a thread on the L-33, pilots liked them very much.
At that time there were 2 for 10-11K In good condition with good trailers.
Search up that thread if you like.
Good searching!
Nick
T

[Dan Marotta]

Years back I was in a partnership in a glider.Â* Just imagine: An LS-6
for the price of an ASW-19!

Find a partner and buy a glider that costs twice what a 1-26 does. You
can't fly it every day so why not share?

On 10/15/2020 2:14 PM, John Sinclair wrote:
> I believe it was Dick Johnson who observed one needs a minimum of 30:1 glide ratio for successful cross country flying on a regular basis. The problem is you will hit the ground before running into the next thermal on many occasions.That was based on flat land soaring, but I find it true in the mountains as well. If you like flying the 1-26, then find an FBO that has one and rent for a while. Owning a bird involves considerable expense , insurance, maintenance, annual, tie-down charges, not to mention that gee-wiz thingie that you just must have! I flew the 1-26 for a couple of years until I could get into ownership of a 30:1 bird!
> Hope this helps,
> JJ

--
Dan, 5J

[rec.aviation.soaring]

On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 10:55:54 AM UTC-4, ken smith wrote:
> Thanks for all the useful feedback. I have heard that the L33 has a weak tail boom and is prone to damage
> and the Std Cirrus wants to spin. Would appreciate more info on these if you have experience with them.

Hi Ken,

I owned an L33 for several years when I was a new pilot and I now have many flights in a Standard Cirrus. I left the L33 tied out in South Florida protected by wing and canopy covers and the horizontal stabilizer removed. Like the Standard Cirrus the L33 was not as easy to assemble as some other ships. I did not find any bad handling characteristics in the L33 and did not baby it. I was taught to always land gliders level on the main wheel with no "flare." Having trained in Blanik L23's I found the L33 comfortable, durable and fun to fly. I like the Standard Cirrus that I occasionally fly as well and it is a significantly better performer but I do seem to recall that it drops a wing sharply in a stall. The only reason I would consider a 1-26 (have only one flight) is if I was planning to leave it assembled for local flights but an L33 is a better glider for that.

Stuart

[Nicholas Kennedy]

Hey Ken
Do you know the US For Sale Classified ads on Wingsandwheels.com?
There is a SGS 1 35 on there right now for 16.7k. Might get 38/1 if its clean.
If thats out of your price range, as Dan mentioned, a partnership can go a long way towards a much better ship.
Nick
T

[Doug Levy]

On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 9:54:27 PM UTC-7, ken smith wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 8:58:36 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Not to start the usual argument, but why? There are many great first generation fiberglass gliders available for the same price, much better condition, and much better performance. Everywhere you fly in Norcal your first thermal is a perilous glide away from the airport in a 1-26. I love the old 1-26, but around here I can't see it practical if you want to stay up.
> > John Cochrane.
> Understand your point.. I will be moving to either southern CA or Nevada if that makes a diff.
> Just looking for a no worries minimal set up ship. Also, just fly for fun and don't need to
> accomplish anything. I don't see any glass ships, that don't have a non hinging canopy,
> in the $10-12K range.

Ken;
I've flown 1-26's since 1996 with over 3000 hours in them. When out on soaring trips I'm often the first to launch because a 1-26 can work small weak thermals. I flew all the badges in 3 months in 1997. Flown dozens on 500k flights and some over 400 miles. There are many long flights in 1-26's by many other pilots. The 1-26 has a low stall speed and with a 40-foot wing span, it can be landed in places that other gliders can't.
I have friends that have modern high-performance ships and a 1-26 also because it's fun to fly.
I'm currently flying a 15-meter touring motor glider. I'm not comfortable flying it as close to the mountains as I would the 1-26. I'm certain that I could climb better in the smaller and broken thermals in the 1-26.
If you are in S. Ca. Inyokern is a great place for x-c. There are several places in Nevada that have great soaring.
That being said soaring is about having safe fun. Having a glider with the performance of those you fly with will give you a chance to team fly and learn.
Doug Levy

[Dan Marotta]

Being taught to land with "no flare" did you a disservice as it requires
landing at a higher speed and, as we all know, energy is directly
proportional to the square of the speed.Â* That means longer landing
rolls.Â* Not necessarily bad if you have lots of space but, when that
outlanding is at a short field and you don't land at the minimum speed,
you might hit something at the far end.

On 10/16/2020 5:37 AM, rec.aviation.soaring wrote:
> On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 10:55:54 AM UTC-4, ken smith wrote:
>> Thanks for all the useful feedback. I have heard that the L33 has a weak tail boom and is prone to damage
>> and the Std Cirrus wants to spin. Would appreciate more info on these if you have experience with them.
> Hi Ken,
>
> I owned an L33 for several years when I was a new pilot and I now have many flights in a Standard Cirrus. I left the L33 tied out in South Florida protected by wing and canopy covers and the horizontal stabilizer removed. Like the Standard Cirrus the L33 was not as easy to assemble as some other ships. I did not find any bad handling characteristics in the L33 and did not baby it. I was taught to always land gliders level on the main wheel with no "flare." Having trained in Blanik L23's I found the L33 comfortable, durable and fun to fly. I like the Standard Cirrus that I occasionally fly as well and it is a significantly better performer but I do seem to recall that it drops a wing sharply in a stall. The only reason I would consider a 1-26 (have only one flight) is if I was planning to leave it assembled for local flights but an L33 is a better glider for that.
>
> Stuart

--
Dan, 5J

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

The problem was likely the Blanik tailwheel, which can be damaged easily in a two-point or tail
first landing. How to train pilots for two-point or tail first landings when you only have a
Blanik? I never figured out how to do it in our club with our L13, so tried to compensate with
ground training while they were learning, and more advice when they got their own glider.

Dan Marotta wrote on 10/17/2020 8:57 AM:
> Being taught to land with "no flare" did you a disservice as it requires landing at a higher
> speed and, as we all know, energy is directly proportional to the square of the speed.* That
> means longer landing rolls.* Not necessarily bad if you have lots of space but, when that
> outlanding is at a short field and you don't land at the minimum speed, you might hit something
> at the far end.
>
> On 10/16/2020 5:37 AM, rec.aviation.soaring wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 10:55:54 AM UTC-4, ken smith wrote:
>>> Thanks for all the useful feedback. I have heard that the L33 has a weak tail boom and is
>>> prone to damage
>>> and the Std Cirrus wants to spin. Would appreciate more info on these if you have experience
>>> with them.
>> Hi Ken,
>>
>> I owned an L33 for several years when I was a new pilot and I now have many flights in a
>> Standard Cirrus. I left the L33 tied out in South Florida protected by wing and canopy covers
>> and the horizontal stabilizer removed. Like the Standard Cirrus the L33 was not as easy to
>> assemble as some other ships. I did not find any bad handling characteristics in the L33 and
>> did not baby it. I was taught to always land gliders level on the main wheel with no "flare."
>> Having trained in Blanik L23's I found the L33 comfortable, durable and fun to fly. I like
>> the Standard Cirrus that I occasionally fly as well and it is a significantly better
>> performer but I do seem to recall that it drops a wing sharply in a stall.* The only reason I
>> would consider a 1-26 (have only one flight) is if I was planning to leave it assembled for
>> local flights but an L33 is a better glider for that.
>>
>> Stuart
>


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[Dan Marotta]

It's just not acceptable to design a glider which can not be landed at
minimum speed or to train pilots incompletely or improperly. Don't make
excuses for less than the best when it comes to training.

On 10/17/2020 10:33 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> The problem was likely the Blanik tailwheel, which can be damaged
> easily in a two-point or tail first landing. How to train pilots for
> two-point or tail first landings when you only have a Blanik? I never
> figured out how to do it in our club with our L13, so tried to
> compensate with ground training while they were learning, and more
> advice when they got their own glider.
>
> Dan Marotta wrote on 10/17/2020 8:57 AM:
>> Being taught to land with "no flare" did you a disservice as it
>> requires landing at a higher speed and, as we all know, energy is
>> directly proportional to the square of the speed.Â* That means longer
>> landing rolls.Â* Not necessarily bad if you have lots of space but,
>> when that outlanding is at a short field and you don't land at the
>> minimum speed, you might hit something at the far end.
>>
>> On 10/16/2020 5:37 AM, rec.aviation.soaring wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 10:55:54 AM UTC-4, ken smith wrote:
>>>> Thanks for all the useful feedback. I have heard that the L33 has a
>>>> weak tail boom and is prone to damage
>>>> and the Std Cirrus wants to spin. Would appreciate more info on
>>>> these if you have experience with them.
>>> Hi Ken,
>>>
>>> I owned an L33 for several years when I was a new pilot and I now
>>> have many flights in a Standard Cirrus. I left the L33 tied out in
>>> South Florida protected by wing and canopy covers and the horizontal
>>> stabilizer removed. Like the Standard Cirrus the L33 was not as easy
>>> to assemble as some other ships. I did not find any bad handling
>>> characteristics in the L33 and did not baby it. I was taught to
>>> always land gliders level on the main wheel with no "flare." Having
>>> trained in Blanik L23's I found the L33 comfortable, durable and fun
>>> to fly. I like the Standard Cirrus that I occasionally fly as well
>>> and it is a significantly better performer but I do seem to recall
>>> that it drops a wing sharply in a stall.Â* The only reason I would
>>> consider a 1-26 (have only one flight) is if I was planning to leave
>>> it assembled for local flights but an L33 is a better glider for that.
>>>
>>> Stuart
>>
>
>

--
Dan, 5J

[James Metcalfe]

At 16:33 17 October 2020, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>The problem was likely the Blanik tailwheel, which can be damaged
>easily in a two-point or tail-first landing. How to train pilots for
>two-point or tail first landings when you only have a Blanik? I never
>figured out how to do it in our club with our L13, so tried to compensate
>with ground training while they were learning, and more advice when
>they got their own glider.

Hmmm... I went solo (in 1977) in a Blanik, having been taught to
always do a "fully-held-off" landing, something which I have been keen
to impress upon my own pupils as a very active instructor since 1983.

I don't remember the club ever having any problems with Blanik tail gear,
although I did (several years later, as club secretary) arrange for the
a/c
to be written off by insurers for main gear damage (from rolling across
ruts hidden in long grass). (Not too difficult at the time, as I think
insurers were very anxious about fatigue life of the Blanik spars!)

[AS]

On Saturday, October 17, 2020 at 5:15:06 PM UTC-4, James Metcalfe wrote:
> At 16:33 17 October 2020, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >The problem was likely the Blanik tailwheel, which can be damaged
> >easily in a two-point or tail-first landing. How to train pilots for
> >two-point or tail first landings when you only have a Blanik? I never
> >figured out how to do it in our club with our L13, so tried to compensate
> >with ground training while they were learning, and more advice when
> >they got their own glider.
>
> Hmmm... I went solo (in 1977) in a Blanik, having been taught to
> always do a "fully-held-off" landing, something which I have been keen
> to impress upon my own pupils as a very active instructor since 1983.
>
> I don't remember the club ever having any problems with Blanik tail gear,
> although I did (several years later, as club secretary) arrange for the
> a/c
> to be written off by insurers for main gear damage (from rolling across
> ruts hidden in long grass). (Not too difficult at the time, as I think
> insurers were very anxious about fatigue life of the Blanik spars!)

>> I don't remember the club ever having any problems with Blanik tail gear, <<
We broke the original tail skid assembly during a youth encampment in the Netherlands. The field was dotted with rabbit holes and the tail skid hit one too many of them. It was essentially a folded piece of steel sheet with a single bolt in the front and a rubber block in the rear. We saved the encampment by fashioning a new skid from a chromed car bumper sourced from a local junk yard. Worked well and kept us going.
The later version of the L13's tail skid had a spring loaded caster wheel, which drastically reduced the side-loading on the skid.

Uli
'AS'

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

It was an explanation, not an excuse. Other than that minor issue, the Blanik L13 is a terrific
club glider, suitable for training (including spins) and cross-country. It can be safely tied
down outdoors, and the rear seat is adequately comfortable and has good visibility out it.


Dan Marotta wrote on 10/17/2020 11:07 AM:
> It's just not acceptable to design a glider which can not be landed at minimum speed or to
> train pilots incompletely or improperly. Don't make excuses for less than the best when it
> comes to training.
>
> On 10/17/2020 10:33 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> The problem was likely the Blanik tailwheel, which can be damaged easily in a two-point or
>> tail first landing. How to train pilots for two-point or tail first landings when you only
>> have a Blanik? I never figured out how to do it in our club with our L13, so tried to
>> compensate with ground training while they were learning, and more advice when they got their
>> own glider.
>>
>> Dan Marotta wrote on 10/17/2020 8:57 AM:
>>> Being taught to land with "no flare" did you a disservice as it requires landing at a higher
>>> speed and, as we all know, energy is directly proportional to the square of the speed.* That
>>> means longer landing rolls.* Not necessarily bad if you have lots of space but, when that
>>> outlanding is at a short field and you don't land at the minimum speed, you might hit
>>> something at the far end.
>>>
>>> On 10/16/2020 5:37 AM, rec.aviation.soaring wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 10:55:54 AM UTC-4, ken smith wrote:
>>>>> Thanks for all the useful feedback. I have heard that the L33 has a weak tail boom and is
>>>>> prone to damage
>>>>> and the Std Cirrus wants to spin. Would appreciate more info on these if you have
>>>>> experience with them.
>>>> Hi Ken,
>>>>
>>>> I owned an L33 for several years when I was a new pilot and I now have many flights in a
>>>> Standard Cirrus. I left the L33 tied out in South Florida protected by wing and canopy
>>>> covers and the horizontal stabilizer removed. Like the Standard Cirrus the L33 was not as
>>>> easy to assemble as some other ships. I did not find any bad handling characteristics in
>>>> the L33 and did not baby it. I was taught to always land gliders level on the main wheel
>>>> with no "flare." Having trained in Blanik L23's I found the L33 comfortable, durable and
>>>> fun to fly. I like the Standard Cirrus that I occasionally fly as well and it is a
>>>> significantly better performer but I do seem to recall that it drops a wing sharply in a
>>>> stall.* The only reason I would consider a 1-26 (have only one flight) is if I was planning
>>>> to leave it assembled for local flights but an L33 is a better glider for that.
>>>>
>>>> Stuart
>>>

[Dan Marotta]

I've given a lot of rides from the back seat of an L-13...

On 10/17/2020 6:27 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> It was an explanation, not an excuse. Other than that minor issue, the
> Blanik L13 is a terrific club glider, suitable for training (including
> spins) and cross-country. It can be safely tied down outdoors, and the
> rear seat is adequately comfortable and has good visibility out it.
>
>
> Dan Marotta wrote on 10/17/2020 11:07 AM:
>> It's just not acceptable to design a glider which can not be landed
>> at minimum speed or to train pilots incompletely or improperly. Don't
>> make excuses for less than the best when it comes to training.
>>
>> On 10/17/2020 10:33 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>> The problem was likely the Blanik tailwheel, which can be damaged
>>> easily in a two-point or tail first landing. How to train pilots for
>>> two-point or tail first landings when you only have a Blanik? I
>>> never figured out how to do it in our club with our L13, so tried to
>>> compensate with ground training while they were learning, and more
>>> advice when they got their own glider.
>>>
>>> Dan Marotta wrote on 10/17/2020 8:57 AM:
>>>> Being taught to land with "no flare" did you a disservice as it
>>>> requires landing at a higher speed and, as we all know, energy is
>>>> directly proportional to the square of the speed.Â* That means
>>>> longer landing rolls.Â* Not necessarily bad if you have lots of
>>>> space but, when that outlanding is at a short field and you don't
>>>> land at the minimum speed, you might hit something at the far end.
>>>>
>>>> On 10/16/2020 5:37 AM, rec.aviation.soaring wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 10:55:54 AM UTC-4, ken smith wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks for all the useful feedback. I have heard that the L33 has
>>>>>> a weak tail boom and is prone to damage
>>>>>> and the Std Cirrus wants to spin. Would appreciate more info on
>>>>>> these if you have experience with them.
>>>>> Hi Ken,
>>>>>
>>>>> I owned an L33 for several years when I was a new pilot and I now
>>>>> have many flights in a Standard Cirrus. I left the L33 tied out in
>>>>> South Florida protected by wing and canopy covers and the
>>>>> horizontal stabilizer removed. Like the Standard Cirrus the L33
>>>>> was not as easy to assemble as some other ships. I did not find
>>>>> any bad handling characteristics in the L33 and did not baby it. I
>>>>> was taught to always land gliders level on the main wheel with no
>>>>> "flare." Having trained in Blanik L23's I found the L33
>>>>> comfortable, durable and fun to fly. I like the Standard Cirrus
>>>>> that I occasionally fly as well and it is a significantly better
>>>>> performer but I do seem to recall that it drops a wing sharply in
>>>>> a stall.Â* The only reason I would consider a 1-26 (have only one
>>>>> flight) is if I was planning to leave it assembled for local
>>>>> flights but an L33 is a better glider for that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stuart
>>>>
>

--
Dan, 5J