Basic Training Gliders

[Derek Copeland]

Once upon a time there was the K13. It was/is a good
basic trainer that is safe and suitable for all basic
training needs, but over the years it has become less
suitable for teaching pilots to fly modern high performance
sailplanes. It is also draughty and noisy (my voice
usually gives up after a day's instructing in one due
to having to shout over the airleaks coming in around
the canopy) and not good at accomodating tall or heavy
pilots. As they are getting on a bit, we are no longer
permitted to teach aerobatics in them - at my club
anyway.

Then Schleicher replaced it with the K21 which in many
respects is much better, but it won't spin very convincingly,
if at all, which cuts out a very important element
of the training syllabus.

On the other hand, most of the East European trainers
spin far too well and too easily and can kill people.
Can't comment on American trainers, because I have
never flown one.

The advanced training requirement is very well covered
by such gliders as the Duo Discus, DG500/1000, ASH
25, but there doesn't seem to a modern equivalent of
the K13 for basic training! Unless anybody knows of
one that is?

Could I suggest the following specification:

1) Safe and easy to fly
2) Simple fixed gear undercarriage
3) Easy ground handling (our club is now buying retractable
gear DG1000s, but they are a complete pain on the ground)
4) Fully aerobatic, including good spinning characteristics
5) Must be capable of flying all the exercises in the
training syllabus
6) Enough performance to make reasonable cross-country
flights, but not so much as to make it difficult to
get students down.
7) Small enough for easy hangarage - wingspan not more
than 17 or 18 metres.

Is there such a perfect training glider produced anywhere
in the World, or about to be? I am sure that there
is a market to be cornered if there is.

Derek Copeland

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Derek Copeland > wrote:

> Once upon a time there was the K13. It was/is a good
> basic trainer that is safe and suitable for all basic
> training needs, but over the years it has become less
> suitable for teaching pilots to fly modern high performance
> sailplanes. It is also draughty and noisy (my voice
> usually gives up after a day's instructing in one due
> to having to shout over the airleaks coming in around
> the canopy) and not good at accomodating tall or heavy
> pilots.

Yeah, I'm 1.8m (which is not that much) and 110 kg (ahem) and I have
trouble with full aileron in the K13.



> Then Schleicher replaced it with the K21 which in many
> respects is much better, but it won't spin very convincingly,
> if at all, which cuts out a very important element
> of the training syllabus.

Nice glider otherwise. As far as I know there are none here in NZ, but
I've flown ones in Arizona (Turf) and California (Cal City). Very
pleasant, though doesn't seem to perform as well as the Grob twins.


> On the other hand, most of the East European trainers
> spin far too well and too easily and can kill people.
> Can't comment on American trainers, because I have
> never flown one.

Me either, but the Blanik is a pretty good East European trainer. Same
sort of performance as the K13, spins well (the spin entries are
especially convincing from quite a "normal" attitude with the "wrong"
but gradual and gentle control inputs. Stops spinning well, every
single time.

You can still buy them new.


> The advanced training requirement is very well covered
> by such gliders as the Duo Discus, DG500/1000, ASH
> 25, but there doesn't seem to a modern equivalent of
> the K13 for basic training! Unless anybody knows of
> one that is?

Our club moved from Blaniks to Grob twins (original retractable Twin
Astirs, bought well used) about ten years ago, and they've served us
well, along with a Janus for more advanced training. We're now in the
process of moving to fixed undercarriage DG1000's, which appear to be
able to do everything the Grobs can do, everything the Janus can do
(except teach you flaps) and everything the Blanik can do (spins and
general aero).



> Could I suggest the following specification:
>
> 1) Safe and easy to fly
> 2) Simple fixed gear undercarriage
> 3) Easy ground handling (our club is now buying retractable
> gear DG1000s, but they are a complete pain on the ground)
> 4) Fully aerobatic, including good spinning characteristics
> 5) Must be capable of flying all the exercises in the
> training syllabus
> 6) Enough performance to make reasonable cross-country
> flights, but not so much as to make it difficult to
> get students down.
> 7) Small enough for easy hangarage - wingspan not more
> than 17 or 18 metres.

Other than the fully aerobatic I think you just described the PW6. Or
the Puchacz (but I really don't know if I'd want to do extended spinning
in them, given the history).

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

[Bill Daniels]

"Derek Copeland" > wrote in
message ...
> Once upon a time there was the K13. It was/is a good
> basic trainer that is safe and suitable for all basic
> training needs, but over the years it has become less
> suitable for teaching pilots to fly modern high performance
> sailplanes. It is also draughty and noisy (my voice
> usually gives up after a day's instructing in one due
> to having to shout over the airleaks coming in around
> the canopy) and not good at accomodating tall or heavy
> pilots. As they are getting on a bit, we are no longer
> permitted to teach aerobatics in them - at my club
> anyway.
>
> Then Schleicher replaced it with the K21 which in many
> respects is much better, but it won't spin very convincingly,
> if at all, which cuts out a very important element
> of the training syllabus.
>
> On the other hand, most of the East European trainers
> spin far too well and too easily and can kill people.
> Can't comment on American trainers, because I have
> never flown one.
>
> The advanced training requirement is very well covered
> by such gliders as the Duo Discus, DG500/1000, ASH
> 25, but there doesn't seem to a modern equivalent of
> the K13 for basic training! Unless anybody knows of
> one that is?
>
> Could I suggest the following specification:
>
> 1) Safe and easy to fly
> 2) Simple fixed gear undercarriage
> 3) Easy ground handling (our club is now buying retractable
> gear DG1000s, but they are a complete pain on the ground)
> 4) Fully aerobatic, including good spinning characteristics
> 5) Must be capable of flying all the exercises in the
> training syllabus
> 6) Enough performance to make reasonable cross-country
> flights, but not so much as to make it difficult to
> get students down.
> 7) Small enough for easy hangarage - wingspan not more
> than 17 or 18 metres.
>
> Is there such a perfect training glider produced anywhere
> in the World, or about to be? I am sure that there
> is a market to be cornered if there is.
>
> Derek Copeland
>
>
>

I'd agree with all except the rigidly fixed gear. Even if not retractable,
I'd want some shock damping - my back hurts from all the student hard
landings. I'd also want really good visibility from the instructor seat.

Bill Daniels

[Frank Whiteley]

This has been a bit slow to get to market, but $50K...XC not so hot
though
http://www.peregrinesailplane.com/
This fits most requirements and two-person rig/derig
http://jarek24.w.interia.pl/pw/pw6e.htm
See also
http://www.soargbsc.com/GBSC/SoaringReports/soarreport2002.05.21.htm

Frank Whiteley

[Derek Copeland]

At 02:48 04 December 2005, Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>'>I'd agree with all except the rigidly fixed gear.
>> Even if not retractable,
>I'd want some shock damping - my back hurts from all
>the student hard
>landings. I'd also want really good visibility from
>the instructor seat.
>
>Bill Daniels
>
I meant fixed gear in the sense of non-retractable,
rather than unsprung, so I totally agree with Bill
on that one. Also on the good visibility from the back
seat, which is another failing of the DG1000. The front
cockpit has a largish headrest that almost completely
blocks the forward view from the rear cockpit. In Europe,
because the DG1000 is certified by EASA, we are not
even allowed to remove it, as it is specified in the
type certificate! While a headrest may be an important
safety item in a car to protect you from whiplash in
a rear end shunt, I am still trying to work out in
what circumstances a glider might get rammed from behind?!!!!!!
Stupid F***ing Bureaucrats!

Can I add to my wish list easy two man rigging and
derigging and self connecting controls? Many current
trainers need about an eight man rigging team, which
is another disincentive to flying the things cross-country.

Derek Copeland

[Charles Yeates]

Bill

PW-6U has what you want.

> I'd agree with all except the rigidly fixed gear. Even if not retractable,
> I'd want some shock damping - my back hurts from all the student hard
> landings. I'd also want really good visibility from the instructor seat.
>
> Bill Daniels
>

--
Charles Yeates

Swidnik PW-6U & PW-5
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/yeatesc/world.html

[Markus Gayda]

For the ASK-21 is a "spin-weight" available which can be installed on the
rudder. Of course you have to weigh the pilots before deciding which weights to
add to the glider.

But then you have a very nice trainer with which you can also train spins.

CU
Markus

[Charles Yeates]

The PW-6 takes min pilot weight of 120lbs in front and up to 441lbs in
two seats with no ballast requirements. Spins too.

> For the ASK-21 is a "spin-weight" available which can be installed on
> the rudder. Of course you have to weigh the pilots before deciding which
> weights to add to the glider.
>
> But then you have a very nice trainer with which you can also train spins.
>
> CU
> Markus

[Ian Cant]

For a number of years the USAF Test Pilots School has
used our ASK-21 for their spin training syllabus.
It spins very well, recovers predictably, they seem
very happy with it. Of course, they add variable amounts
of rear-mounted ballast weights and calculate the CG
with care for each flight.

The gentle handling of the 21 makes it preferable to
other glass 2-seaters for low-time pilots, it is really
quite hard to drop it in hard enough to hurt your back,
and it is very durable in all respects. Factory support
is also excellent.

And the performance is good enough for X-C and use
of available lift to get to spin entry altitudes from
a low tow / winch launch - though perhaps not in early-morning
still air conditions.

Is there really a better alternative at the same or
lower cost ?

Ian




At 17:06 04 December 2005, Markus Gayda wrote:
>For the ASK-21 is a 'spin-weight' available which can
>be installed on the
>rudder. Of course you have to weigh the pilots before
>deciding which weights to
>add to the glider.
>
>But then you have a very nice trainer with which you
>can also train spins.
>
>CU
>Markus
>

[Andreas Maurer]

On 4 Dec 2005 00:02:42 GMT, Derek Copeland
> wrote:

>1) Safe and easy to fly
>2) Simple fixed gear undercarriage
>3) Easy ground handling (our club is now buying retractable
>gear DG1000s, but they are a complete pain on the ground)
>4) Fully aerobatic, including good spinning characteristics
>5) Must be capable of flying all the exercises in the
>training syllabus
>6) Enough performance to make reasonable cross-country
>flights, but not so much as to make it difficult to
>get students down.
>7) Small enough for easy hangarage - wingspan not more
>than 17 or 18 metres.
>
>Is there such a perfect training glider produced anywhere
>in the World, or about to be? I am sure that there
>is a market to be cornered if there is.


ASK-21.
Simply install the (now) approved spin-kit which makes spins possible
in the ASK-21 by installing lead weights in the tail.


Bye
Andreas

[W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\).]

There are two approved methods of adding rear ballast to the K21 to move the
C. of G. aft.

It is possible to fit a lead ballast block in the rear fuselage just aft of
the fin spar, this is not intended to be fitted or removed between flights,
and of course the machine must be re-weighed..

It is also possible to have a hole through the fin to take a bar to carry
external ballast in the form of up to 10 x 1kg lead weights, which is
intended to be adjusted or removed between flights as required. See
"optional extras" on the specification sheet at
http://www.as-segelflugzeuge.de/englisch/e_main.htm , "Your Sailplane", "ASK
21", at the bottom of the page "Download Info:", "Specification ASK 21
(english)".

Both schemes are described in the owners' handbook. See also the
Schleicher AD and Technical notes
http://www.as-segelflugzeuge.de/englisch/e_main.htm "TN/LTA", "ASK 21" in
particular TN-No 4 &4a, see also "further TN/AD see overview (PDF)".

Note also that in common with all German gliders (as far as I know) the
minimum front cockpit weight is always shown as 70 kg (154 lbs). However
if the glider is carefully weighed it may be found that the minimum front
cockpit load calculated by moments when flown solo is less than this. Of
course the minimum front cockpit load calculated by moments will always be
reduced when there is a rear seat pilot, by an amount which increases as the
rear cockpit load is increased.

The importance of all this is that the glider will not hold a stable spin
unless the C. of G. is close to the aft limit (the numbers are in the
handbook), but you will be in trouble if you fly it with the C. of G. aft of
the aft limit.

Don't even think of trying for a full spin, or flying with the C. of G. well
aft unless you have read the pilots' manual AMENDED BY TN 23. The TN
itself is on the Schleicher web-site but the page amendments are not.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "Markus Gayda" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> For the ASK-21 is a "spin-weight" available which can be installed on the
> rudder. Of course you have to weigh the pilots before deciding which
> weights to add to the glider.
>
> But then you have a very nice trainer with which you can also train spins.
>
> CU
> Markus
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Derek Copeland wrote:

> While a headrest may be an important
> safety item in a car to protect you from whiplash in
> a rear end shunt, I am still trying to work out in
> what circumstances a glider might get rammed from behind?!!!!!!
> Stupid F***ing Bureaucrats!

Perhaps the "Stupid F***ing Bureaucrat" saw the same video I saw at an
SSA convention: it showed the pilot dummy movement during a test crash
of a glider, with violent whiplash occurring. I then asked Gerhard
Waibel about the safety value of the headrest in Schleicher gliders, and
he told me it was very important. So, I retrieved the headrest for my
ASH 26 E from the basement and put it back in the glider!


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Derek Copeland]

At 20:42 04 December 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Derek Copeland wrote:
>
>> While a headrest may be an important
>> safety item in a car to protect you from whiplash
>>in
>> a rear end shunt, I am still trying to work out in
>> what circumstances a glider might get rammed from
>>behind?!!!!!!
>> Stupid F***ing Bureaucrats!
>
>Perhaps the 'Stupid F***ing Bureaucrat' saw the same
>video I saw at an
>SSA convention: it showed the pilot dummy movement
>during a test crash
>of a glider, with violent whiplash occurring. I then
>asked Gerhard
>Waibel about the safety value of the headrest in Schleicher
>gliders, and
>he told me it was very important. So, I retrieved the
>headrest for my
>ASH 26 E from the basement and put it back in the glider!
>
So what do you have to do to achieve the whiplash -
Tailslide backwards into the ground?

I did once injure my neck as a result of a student's
very heavy landing. Basically my head went forwards
and down and I got what is called an 'acute flexion
injury' which is the reverse of the usual whiplash
injury where the head initially goes backwards. I don't
believe that a headrest would have helped. I had to
wear a surgical collar for several weeks after this,
but luckily no permanent damage was done.

On the subject of making K21s spin, there is a privately
owned K21 at Lasham that spins and recovers very nicely
(unlike our club owned one), even with a slightly heavy
pilot like myself on board. This was rebuilt after
a crash several years ago, before which it had been
a perfectly normal K21 with the usual reluctance to
spin. I don't know whether the tail got heavier or
the angle of incidence of the tailplane was changed
during the repairs, to account for this change in spinning
characteristics. Perhaps Schleichers should take a
look at this particular glider and incorporate any
changes from the standard specification into their
production models?

Derek Copeland

[Don Johnstone]

At 21:48 04 December 2005, Derek Copeland wrote:
>At 20:42 04 December 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>Derek Copeland wrote:
>>
>>> While a headrest may be an important
>>> safety item in a car to protect you from whiplash
>>>in
>>> a rear end shunt, I am still trying to work out in
>>> what circumstances a glider might get rammed from
>>>behind?!!!!!!
>>> Stupid F***ing Bureaucrats!
>>
>>Perhaps the 'Stupid F***ing Bureaucrat' saw the same
>>video I saw at an
>>SSA convention: it showed the pilot dummy movement
>>during a test crash
>>of a glider, with violent whiplash occurring. I then
>>asked Gerhard
>>Waibel about the safety value of the headrest in Schleicher
>>gliders, and
>>he told me it was very important. So, I retrieved the
>>headrest for my
>>ASH 26 E from the basement and put it back in the glider!
>>
>So what do you have to do to achieve the whiplash -
>Tailslide backwards into the ground?
>
>I did once injure my neck as a result of a student's
>very heavy landing. Basically my head went forwards
>and down and I got what is called an 'acute flexion
>injury' which is the reverse of the usual whiplash
>injury where the head initially goes backwards. I don't
>believe that a headrest would have helped. I had to
>wear a surgical collar for several weeks after this,
>but luckily no permanent damage was done.
>
>On the subject of making K21s spin, there is a privately
>owned K21 at Lasham that spins and recovers very nicely
>(unlike our club owned one), even with a slightly heavy
>pilot like myself on board. This was rebuilt after
>a crash several years ago, before which it had been
>a perfectly normal K21 with the usual reluctance to
>spin. I don't know whether the tail got heavier or
>the angle of incidence of the tailplane was changed
>during the repairs, to account for this change in spinning
>characteristics. Perhaps Schleichers should take a
>look at this particular glider and incorporate any
>changes from the standard specification into their
>production models?
>
>Derek Copeland
>

The answer to the whiplash question is very simple
and whiplash describes the action which causes the
injury. When a car, or glider decelerates very rapidly,
the head, which is unrestrained and has a fairly high
mass continues to move forward until it is stopped
at full body extension. It then whips back and if there
is nothing to stop it extends backwards, that is what
causes the injury. It is correct that a headrest prevents
injury in a rear shunt but that is not the primary
cause of 'whiplash' injuries. It is the whipping action
following a sudden deceleration.
I suppose if an impact in a glider is severe enough
to cause the whiplash then that injury may be the least
of your problems as you are much closer to the crash
in a glider that you are in a car.

[Jack]

Derek Copeland wrote:

> The front
> cockpit has a largish headrest that almost completely
> blocks the forward view from the rear cockpit. In Europe,
> because the DG1000 is certified by EASA, we are not
> even allowed to remove it, as it is specified in the
> type certificate! While a headrest may be an important
> safety item in a car to protect you from whiplash in
> a rear end shunt, I am still trying to work out in
> what circumstances a glider might get rammed from behind?

Perhaps a ground loop?


Jack

[Dave Martin]

At 23:18 04 December 2005, Jack wrote:
>Derek Copeland wrote:
>
> > The front
>> cockpit has a largish headrest that almost completely
>> blocks the forward view from the rear cockpit. In
>>Europe,
>> because the DG1000 is certified by EASA, we are not
>> even allowed to remove it, as it is specified in the
>> type certificate! While a headrest may be an important
>> safety item in a car to protect you from whiplash
>>in
>> a rear end shunt, I am still trying to work out in
>> what circumstances a glider might get rammed from
>>behind?
>
>

Derek

Perhaps you should try to understand whiplash.

When the glider/car or whatever is carrying a body
is stopped suddenly the head goes forwards.

When restrained by the seatbelts the remainder of the
body cannot follow it. Hence in cars we now have airbags.
Unfortunately for the poor neck, the shoulders and
head eventually whip back (in reality a fraction of
a second).

The shear forces on the neck as it goes backwards from
the top of the seat are enormous hence in cars, the
head restraint is fitted. It is not a head rest.

Perhaps for gliders we should insist on airbags and
head restraints for both seats?

Having flown from the rear of many two seaters the
head gear and hairstyle of the front seat passenger
causes more problems than a well designed head retraint.


IMHO the worst thing the front seat passenger can wear
is a white hat or an have affro/permed hairstyle.

Dave

[Derek Copeland]

At 22:42 04 December 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
>The answer to the whiplash question is very simple
>and whiplash describes the action which causes the
>injury. When a car, or glider decelerates very rapidly,
>the head, which is unrestrained and has a fairly high
>mass continues to move forward until it is stopped
>at full body extension. It then whips back and if there
>is nothing to stop it extends backwards, that is what
>causes the injury. It is correct that a headrest prevents
>injury in a rear shunt but that is not the primary
>cause of 'whiplash' injuries. It is the whipping action
>following a sudden deceleration.
>I suppose if an impact in a glider is severe enough
>to cause the whiplash then that injury may be the least
>of your problems as you are much closer to the crash
>in a glider than you are in a car.
--------------------------------------
I actually did an instructional flight in the back
seat of a DG1000 today, and was reminded how poor the
forward visibility from the rear cockpit is. You have
to peer though a small semi-circular gap between the
canopy hoop, the front headrest and the student's head.
The forward view is far worse than in a K13 with its
one piece canopy, and not helped by the fact that you
sit fairly low down in the cockpit. I think that I
will make a point of only flying this type with well
switched on students who keep a good look out!

I suppose that it's a case of what is the greater risk.
Whiplash in the event of a crash or heavy landing,
or a head on mid-air collision with another aircraft
because you can't see ahead?

BTW I don't dislike the DG1000. It handles and performs
beautifully, it has good airbrakes (unlike the Duo
Discus), it is fully aerobatic in 18 metre mode (unlike
the Duo) and you can operate the undercarriage from
both cockpits (unlike the Duo).

BUT, I don't like the restricted view from the rear
cockpit, the difficult and heavy ground handling, getting
in and out of the thing, and the trigger type trimmer
mounted on the stick that doesn't seem to work. You
end up trimming with the trimmer tell-tale knob on
the side of the cockpit wall, so why bother with the
trigger in the first place?

Good try for the ideal trainer DG, but no cigar yet!


Derek Copeland

P.S. The r.a.s. black hole seems to re-appeared. this
is my third attempt at posting this!

[Bill Daniels]

"Derek Copeland" > wrote in
message ...
> At 22:42 04 December 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
> >The answer to the whiplash question is very simple
> >and whiplash describes the action which causes the
> >injury. When a car, or glider decelerates very rapidly,
> >the head, which is unrestrained and has a fairly high
> >mass continues to move forward until it is stopped
> >at full body extension. It then whips back and if there
> >is nothing to stop it extends backwards, that is what
> >causes the injury. It is correct that a headrest prevents
> >injury in a rear shunt but that is not the primary
> >cause of 'whiplash' injuries. It is the whipping action
> >following a sudden deceleration.
> >I suppose if an impact in a glider is severe enough
> >to cause the whiplash then that injury may be the least
> >of your problems as you are much closer to the crash
> >in a glider than you are in a car.
> --------------------------------------
> I actually did an instructional flight in the back
> seat of a DG1000 today, and was reminded how poor the
> forward visibility from the rear cockpit is. You have
> to peer though a small semi-circular gap between the
> canopy hoop, the front headrest and the student's head.
> The forward view is far worse than in a K13 with its
> one piece canopy, and not helped by the fact that you
> sit fairly low down in the cockpit. I think that I
> will make a point of only flying this type with well
> switched on students who keep a good look out!
>
> I suppose that it's a case of what is the greater risk.
> Whiplash in the event of a crash or heavy landing,
> or a head on mid-air collision with another aircraft
> because you can't see ahead?
>
> BTW I don't dislike the DG1000. It handles and performs
> beautifully, it has good airbrakes (unlike the Duo
> Discus), it is fully aerobatic in 18 metre mode (unlike
> the Duo) and you can operate the undercarriage from
> both cockpits (unlike the Duo).
>
> BUT, I don't like the restricted view from the rear
> cockpit, the difficult and heavy ground handling, getting
> in and out of the thing, and the trigger type trimmer
> mounted on the stick that doesn't seem to work. You
> end up trimming with the trimmer tell-tale knob on
> the side of the cockpit wall, so why bother with the
> trigger in the first place?
>
> Good try for the ideal trainer DG, but no cigar yet!
>
>
> Derek Copeland
>
> P.S. The r.a.s. black hole seems to re-appeared. this
> is my third attempt at posting this!
>
>
It does seem like the cockpits just keep getting worse. Maybe someone
should just try to improve the old Grob 103. Putting everything else aside,
the cockpit was nice.

Maybe the perfect trainer will be the Stemme S2 - if they ever build it.

Bill Daniels

[Bob Korves]

Derek Copeland > wrote in
:

> BUT, I don't like the restricted view from the rear
> cockpit, the difficult and heavy ground handling, getting
> in and out of the thing, and the trigger type trimmer
> mounted on the stick that doesn't seem to work. You
> end up trimming with the trimmer tell-tale knob on
> the side of the cockpit wall, so why bother with the
> trigger in the first place?
>
> Good try for the ideal trainer DG, but no cigar yet!
>
>
> Derek Copeland
>

Yes, the DG trimmer control is cr@p, in all the DG's I have flown. Also
the very stiff aileron control in the 1000 -- takes both hands on the stick
to enter a thermal.

The front seat of the 1000 is quite comfortable, but the back seat is like
sitting on a toilet.

The Duo has a few minor faults, but the visibility is superb from both
cockpits and the handling is light and well balanced, nore like a single
seater.
-Bob Korves

[Bob Korves]

Dave Martin > wrote in
:

(snip)
> Perhaps for gliders we should insist on airbags and
> head restraints for both seats?
>
> Having flown from the rear of many two seaters the
> head gear and hairstyle of the front seat passenger
> causes more problems than a well designed head retraint.
>
>
> IMHO the worst thing the front seat passenger can wear
> is a white hat or an have affro/permed hairstyle.
>
> Dave

No glider air bags for me. Most of my landings would set them off!

When I fly our Duo I insist on the front seat person wearing a dark colored
hat. Otherwise all the rear seater sees in the canopy is reflections of
white hat.
-Bob Korves

[Derek Copeland]

At 01:18 05 December 2005, Bob Korves wrote:
>>
>Yes, the DG trimmer control is cr@p, in all the DG's
>I have flown. Also
>the very stiff aileron control in the 1000 -- takes
>both hands on the stick
>to enter a thermal.
>
>The front seat of the 1000 is quite comfortable, but
>the back seat is like
>sitting on a toilet.
>
>The Duo has a few minor faults, but the visibility
>is superb from both
>cockpits and the handling is light and well balanced,
>nore like a single
>seater.
>-Bob Korves

Bob,

The ailerons on our DG1000 are not at all heavy, and
it has the most nicely co-ordinated controls of any
two seater glider I have ever flown (Duo is also nice).
Have you tried oiling the hinges?

Derek Copeland

[Paul]

Derek
Try adjusting the sitting position to suit you before you fly in the thing.
Most instructors tend to hop and fly without getting things right. The
number of times I have people whinging about the **** poor this and the crap
that and I find that they havn't even noticed something is adjustable to
alleviate that issue.
The rear seat of the 1000 is adjustable up and down. I am 6'4 and have no
trouble sitting too low in the back of our 1000 if I don't raise the seat.
In fact the first time I flew it from the rear I assumed I would need the
seat bottomed out. Big mistake! I couldn't see and could only just reach the
rudder pedals. I felt like I was in a pit. Next flight adjusted the seat
till my head just cleared the canopy and things where totally different. Far
better vis

Anyways, I don't believe there ever will be the perfect trainer. Too many
opinions and not enough manufacturers to ever sort this issue out. Its all a
compromise.

But hows this for a spec. ( Feel free to add )
1.Benign enough that a student could learn to fly it and not get into
trouble after only 10 flights but with the flick off a switch becomes the
spin trainer from Hell.

2.Heavy enough to penetrate upwind into 30knts to the next wave band and
light enough to be rigged single-handed by a little old lady.

3.Low enough to the ground to allow entry by height challenged ATC cadets
but with a enough ground clearance and U/C travel to permit 15 ft flares
with associated stall and arrivals without spinal readjustment.


> I actually did an instructional flight in the back
> seat of a DG1000 today, and was reminded how poor the
> forward visibility from the rear cockpit is. You have
> to peer though a small semi-circular gap between the
> canopy hoop, the front headrest and the student's head.
> The forward view is far worse than in a K13 with its
> one piece canopy, and not helped by the fact that you
> sit fairly low down in the cockpit. I think that I
> will make a point of only flying this type with well
> switched on students who keep a good look out!
>
> I suppose that it's a case of what is the greater risk.
> Whiplash in the event of a crash or heavy landing,
> or a head on mid-air collision with another aircraft
> because you can't see ahead?
>
> BTW I don't dislike the DG1000. It handles and performs
> beautifully, it has good airbrakes (unlike the Duo
> Discus), it is fully aerobatic in 18 metre mode (unlike
> the Duo) and you can operate the undercarriage from
> both cockpits (unlike the Duo).
>
> BUT, I don't like the restricted view from the rear
> cockpit, the difficult and heavy ground handling, getting
> in and out of the thing, and the trigger type trimmer
> mounted on the stick that doesn't seem to work. You
> end up trimming with the trimmer tell-tale knob on
> the side of the cockpit wall, so why bother with the
> trigger in the first place?
>
> Good try for the ideal trainer DG, but no cigar yet!
>
>
> Derek Copeland
>
> P.S. The r.a.s. black hole seems to re-appeared. this
> is my third attempt at posting this!
>
>
>
>

[Marc Ramsey]

Derek Copeland wrote:
> The ailerons on our DG1000 are not at all heavy, and
> it has the most nicely co-ordinated controls of any
> two seater glider I have ever flown (Duo is also nice).
> Have you tried oiling the hinges?


Having flown the same DG1000, I have to agree with Bob, the ailerons are
quite heavy, although not quite as heavy as the DG505 I flew. Neither
of us belong to the clubs that own these gliders, so we can't attest to
the quality of the maintenance (but the 1000 is less than 3 years old).
I normally like DG handling (I've owned a 101 and a 303), but the two
seaters are simply not as pleasant to fly as the Duo...

Marc

[Bob Korves]

Derek Copeland > wrote in
:

>
>
> At 01:18 05 December 2005, Bob Korves wrote:
>>>
>>Yes, the DG trimmer control is cr@p, in all the DG's
>>I have flown. Also
>>the very stiff aileron control in the 1000 -- takes
>>both hands on the stick
>>to enter a thermal.
(snip)
>>-Bob Korves
>
> Bob,
>
> The ailerons on our DG1000 are not at all heavy, and
> it has the most nicely co-ordinated controls of any
> two seater glider I have ever flown (Duo is also nice).
> Have you tried oiling the hinges?
>
> Derek Copeland

The one I flew was very stiff. It was just OK in straight flight and when
established in a thermal. To achieve a brisk roll with full stick
deflection during thermal entry required both hands on the stick. Pitch
forces were much lighter. The glider I flew had several hundred hours over
several years. It may indeed need the controls lubed or some other
maintenance performed.

BTW, the one I flew had the retractable three wheel set-up, and the ground
handling was very good, better than a Grob 103 Twin II (or a Duo).

The 1000 also does very nice loops and wingovers (20m). I have it on very
good authority that the Duo does very nice loops and wingovers, too,
despite the prohibition on the placard...
-Bob Korves

[Bob Korves]

Bob Korves <bkorves@winfirstDECIMALcom> wrote in
. 44:

> Derek Copeland > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>>
>> At 01:18 05 December 2005, Bob Korves wrote:
>>>>
>>>Yes, the DG trimmer control is cr@p, in all the DG's
>>>I have flown. Also
>>>the very stiff aileron control in the 1000 -- takes
>>>both hands on the stick
>>>to enter a thermal.
> (snip)
>>>-Bob Korves
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> The ailerons on our DG1000 are not at all heavy, and
>> it has the most nicely co-ordinated controls of any
>> two seater glider I have ever flown (Duo is also nice).
>> Have you tried oiling the hinges?
>>
>> Derek Copeland
>
> The one I flew was very stiff. It was just OK in straight flight and
> when established in a thermal. To achieve a brisk roll with full
> stick deflection during thermal entry required both hands on the
> stick. Pitch forces were much lighter. The glider I flew had several
> hundred hours over several years. It may indeed need the controls
> lubed or some other maintenance performed.
>
> BTW, the one I flew had the retractable three wheel set-up, and the
> ground handling was very good, better than a Grob 103 Twin II (or a
> Duo).
>
> The 1000 also does very nice loops and wingovers (20m). I have it on
> very good authority that the Duo does very nice loops and wingovers,
> too, despite the prohibition on the placard...
> -Bob Korves
>

I should also mention that we were flying in the Sierra Nevada mountains of
California/Nevada on a day with 10+ knot thermals. Pullups into thermals
were at 80-100+ knots.
-Bob

[Paul]

The end of the ailerons slotting into the socket in the end of the little
ailerons on the 20 mtr tips tend to attract dirt. ( as they usually have
grease or vaseline on them )They need to be cleaned and lubricated quite
regularly.
This helps.
Paul
"Bob Korves" <bkorves@winfirstDECIMALcom> wrote in message
. 44...
> Derek Copeland > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> >
> > At 01:18 05 December 2005, Bob Korves wrote:
> >>>
> >>Yes, the DG trimmer control is cr@p, in all the DG's
> >>I have flown. Also
> >>the very stiff aileron control in the 1000 -- takes
> >>both hands on the stick
> >>to enter a thermal.
> (snip)
> >>-Bob Korves
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > The ailerons on our DG1000 are not at all heavy, and
> > it has the most nicely co-ordinated controls of any
> > two seater glider I have ever flown (Duo is also nice).
> > Have you tried oiling the hinges?
> >
> > Derek Copeland
>
> The one I flew was very stiff. It was just OK in straight flight and when
> established in a thermal. To achieve a brisk roll with full stick
> deflection during thermal entry required both hands on the stick. Pitch
> forces were much lighter. The glider I flew had several hundred hours
over
> several years. It may indeed need the controls lubed or some other
> maintenance performed.
>
> BTW, the one I flew had the retractable three wheel set-up, and the ground
> handling was very good, better than a Grob 103 Twin II (or a Duo).
>
> The 1000 also does very nice loops and wingovers (20m). I have it on very
> good authority that the Duo does very nice loops and wingovers, too,
> despite the prohibition on the placard...
> -Bob Korves

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Derek Copeland > wrote:

> Also on the good visibility from the back
> seat, which is another failing of the DG1000. The front
> cockpit has a largish headrest that almost completely
> blocks the forward view from the rear cockpit. I

Strange. I've only had one flight in a DG1000, but it was from the back
seat and I did the tow and landing and had no problem at all. In fact I
thought it was an extremely nice glider to fly from the back, compared
to the Twin Astir or Janus that I normally fly.

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

[[email protected]]

Bruce Hoult wrote:
> it was an extremely nice glider to fly from the back, compared
> to the Twin Astir or Janus that I normally fly.
>
> --
> Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
> Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

Is that the WGC Janus and Astir Bruce? If so I've been trying to raise
someone at the club for some time now. No reply to emails. If you can
help me out that would be cool.

My 2 cents on the trainer question... I love the IS-2B2 Lark! I'm
sure some will say I'm nuts but I don't think you can beat it for the
money. Great rear seat vis. Good performance, flaps and gear for
advanced training, aerobatic, built like a tank, looks cool, handles
nice. Mine just came off major overhaul so all control circuit
bearings are good, no stiff ailerons here! I can go from trailer to
flight (or reverse) in 1.5 hours with 2 people (3 better, more too
many) with no fancy rigging aids. Price comparable to Blanik L-13!
Life limit iinspection is not the horror many believe. Only downside,
and it's an issue, is factory support. They are slow. This may be one
of the main reasons the Lark hasn't become a more appreciated and
utilized trainer. Unfortunate. If IAR would get it's act together
there would be no reason to drop $40k on a Grob or whatever a K21 or
Owl costs. I wouldn't even look at a Blanik or Peregrine.

Matt Michael CFIG
SSA Master Instructor
FAA Aviation Safety Counselor
Soaring Safety Foundation Advisor
Chief Instructor Central Iowa Glider Club (www.knightglider.com)
Woodstock N20609 "Wanders Wonder"
IS-28B2 Lark N28DG

[Bruce Hoult]

Hi Matt, long time no see.


In article om>,
wrote:

> Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > it was an extremely nice glider to fly from the back, compared
> > to the Twin Astir or Janus that I normally fly.
> >
> > --
> > Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
> > Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------
>
> Is that the WGC Janus and Astir Bruce?

Yep.


> If so I've been trying to raise someone at the club for some time
> now. No reply to emails. If you can help me out that would be cool.

Hm. Someone new took over the site and moved it to another ISP and .. I
don't know what's happened to emails or who is checking them. Who do
you want to get hold of?


> My 2 cents on the trainer question... I love the IS-2B2 Lark! I'm
> sure some will say I'm nuts but I don't think you can beat it for the
> money. Great rear seat vis. Good performance, flaps and gear for
> advanced training, aerobatic, built like a tank, looks cool, handles
> nice.

I've never seen a Lark, but I understand they're quite popular across
the ditch in Aussie.

Bruce

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

[Nils Hoeimyr]

Don Johnstone wrote:

> I suppose if an impact in a glider is severe enough
> to cause the whiplash then that injury may be the least
> of your problems as you are much closer to the crash
> in a glider that you are in a car.
>
There is less of a crumple zone than in a car, but
most well designed gliders will absorb
some energy in the nose and cockpit area during
impact that will protect you to a certain extent.
Whiplash injury is therefore indeed an issue.
Even a groundloop during an outlanding can give
a whiplash and a good headrest is an important
safety feature.

Nils

[Charles Yeates]

Buy a PW-6U and eliminate ballast needs :>))

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). wrote:
> There are two approved methods of adding rear ballast to the K21 to move the
> C. of G. aft.
>
> It is possible to fit a lead ballast block in the rear fuselage just aft of
> the fin spar, this is not intended to be fitted or removed between flights,
> and of course the machine must be re-weighed..
>
> It is also possible to have a hole through the fin to take a bar to carry
> external ballast in the form of up to 10 x 1kg lead weights, which is
> intended to be adjusted or removed between flights as required. See
> "optional extras" on the specification sheet at
> http://www.as-segelflugzeuge.de/englisch/e_main.htm , "Your Sailplane", "ASK
> 21", at the bottom of the page "Download Info:", "Specification ASK 21
> (english)".
>
> Both schemes are described in the owners' handbook. See also the
> Schleicher AD and Technical notes
> http://www.as-segelflugzeuge.de/englisch/e_main.htm "TN/LTA", "ASK 21" in
> particular TN-No 4 &4a, see also "further TN/AD see overview (PDF)".
>
> Note also that in common with all German gliders (as far as I know) the
> minimum front cockpit weight is always shown as 70 kg (154 lbs). However
> if the glider is carefully weighed it may be found that the minimum front
> cockpit load calculated by moments when flown solo is less than this. Of
> course the minimum front cockpit load calculated by moments will always be
> reduced when there is a rear seat pilot, by an amount which increases as the
> rear cockpit load is increased.
>
> The importance of all this is that the glider will not hold a stable spin
> unless the C. of G. is close to the aft limit (the numbers are in the
> handbook), but you will be in trouble if you fly it with the C. of G. aft of
> the aft limit.
>
> Don't even think of trying for a full spin, or flying with the C. of G. well
> aft unless you have read the pilots' manual AMENDED BY TN 23. The TN
> itself is on the Schleicher web-site but the page amendments are not.
>
> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
> Remove "ic" to reply.
>
>
>>"Markus Gayda" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>For the ASK-21 is a "spin-weight" available which can be installed on the
>>rudder. Of course you have to weigh the pilots before deciding which
>>weights to add to the glider.
>>
>>But then you have a very nice trainer with which you can also train spins.
>>
>>CU
>>Markus

[John Galloway]

'Whiplash' cervical injuries come from a rear impact
where the head lags the forward accelerated body and
then whips forward injuring the ligaments and/or muscles
at the back of the neck (and causing a movement towards
the lawyer's office). The head restraint in a road
car limits the rearward head motion, absorbs some energy
and thus reduces the forward whiplash.

A frontal impact, or a groundloop in a glider might
cause a neck injury but the headrest behind the pilot
won't help much. That's why they need to have those
driver attached anti-forward-movement head restraints
for F1 racing drivers.


At 09:18 05 December 2005, Nils Hoeimyr wrote:
>Don Johnstone wrote:
>
>> I suppose if an impact in a glider is severe enough
>> to cause the whiplash then that injury may be the
>>least
>> of your problems as you are much closer to the crash
>> in a glider that you are in a car.
>>
>There is less of a crumple zone than in a car, but
>most well designed gliders will absorb
>some energy in the nose and cockpit area during
>impact that will protect you to a certain extent.
>Whiplash injury is therefore indeed an issue.
>Even a groundloop during an outlanding can give
>a whiplash and a good headrest is an important
>safety feature.
>
>Nils
>

[W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\).]

This completely misses the point.

If you have a K21, I was explaining how you can make it spinnable when flown
at normal loads.

If you want a two seater which will do a good spin demonstration without
ballast then there are several machines which are suitable; the most obvious
is the Puchacz which is why the British Gliding Association own one
specifically for instructor coaching.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "Charles Yeates" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Buy a PW-6U and eliminate ballast needs :>))
>

[Derek Copeland]

At 02:00 05 December 2005, Paul wrote:
>Derek
>Try adjusting the sitting position to suit you before
>you fly in the thing.
>Most instructors tend to hop and fly without getting
>things right. The
>number of times I have people whinging about the ****
>poor this and the crap
>that and I find that they havn't even noticed something
>is adjustable to
>alleviate that issue.
>The rear seat of the 1000 is adjustable up and down.
>I am 6'4 and have no
>trouble sitting too low in the back of our 1000 if
>I don't raise the seat.
>In fact the first time I flew it from the rear I assumed
>I would need the
>seat bottomed out. Big mistake! I couldn't see and
>could only just reach the
>rudder pedals. I felt like I was in a pit. Next flight
>adjusted the seat
>till my head just cleared the canopy and things where
>totally different. Far
>better vis
>
-------------------------------------
The original adjustable rear seat, which was a hinged
device held up by a seat belt strap with an adjustable
buckle, has been removed from our DG1000 and replaced
with a High Density Foam safety cushion, as the CFI
and the Committee felt it was poorly engineered and
dangerous. Indeed the strap adjuster broke during the
brief period we had a demonstrator on trial for evaluation,
even without any heavy landings. So I am afraid the
option that Paul suggests is not open to me. By the
way getting permission to do this simple modification
cost the club a small fortune, because we had to get
it approved and certified by EASA! F***ing Bureaucrats
and F***ing European Commission again!

I am 5' 10' tall with a fairly long back, but short
legs, so I am quite tall sitting down. I regularly
instruct in the K13, K21, Duo Discus, Grob G103, Bocian,
and now the DG1000. The best forward view from the
rear cockpit is offered by the K13 and the Duo Discus
which both have one piece canopies, and the Bocian
which has a large front canopy and flies in a rather
nose down attitude. The K21, Grob 103 and DG1000 all
have two piece canopies with a hoop in between them
which somewhat restricts the forward view, especially
in the case of the DG which seems to have a narrower
cockpit and the hoop further forward. It is definitely
the worst of the bunch in this respect!

I will try a few extra cushions under my backside next
time I fly it, as sitting higher probably would improve
my view forward.

Can I add a one-piece canopy to my wish list?

Derek Copeland

[Vaughn Simon]

"Derek Copeland" > wrote in
message ...
> The advanced training requirement is very well covered
> by such gliders as the Duo Discus, DG500/1000, ASH
> 25, but there doesn't seem to a modern equivalent of
> the K13 for basic training! Unless anybody knows of
> one that is?
>
> Could I suggest the following specification:
>
> 1) Safe and easy to fly
> 2) Simple fixed gear undercarriage
> 3) Easy ground handling (our club is now buying retractable
> gear DG1000s, but they are a complete pain on the ground)
> 4) Fully aerobatic, including good spinning characteristics
> 5) Must be capable of flying all the exercises in the
> training syllabus
> 6) Enough performance to make reasonable cross-country
> flights, but not so much as to make it difficult to
> get students down.
> 7) Small enough for easy hangarage - wingspan not more
> than 17 or 18 metres.

I would also add that the perfect trainer has an airframe that you can
leave out in the weather 24/7 (or at least all day). Trainers usually are
tied down near the launch point so they are ready to go at a moment's
notice. Often there is not a handy hanger, and rigging,derigging several
times a day is simply out of the question. Present-day machines that I
would consider leaving out in the weather include the Blanik, Krosno, and
(naturally) the 2-33.

The trainer itself is also part of your promotial plan to attract new
students, so it should preferably at least look like a modern glider. That
leaves out the 2-33.

Vaughn

[Derek Copeland]

I have now tried flying from the rear seat of the DG1000
with some extra safety cushions under me. Sitting higher
does indeed improve the view forward quite markedly,
especially as I can now see over the top of the front
seat headrest.

Derek Copeland
----------------

>At 02:00 05 December 2005, Paul wrote:
>>Derek
>>Try adjusting the sitting position to suit you before
>>you fly in the thing.
>>Most instructors tend to hop and fly without getting
>>things right. The
>>number of times I have people whinging about the ****
>>poor this and the crap
>>that and I find that they havn't even noticed something
>>is adjustable to
>>alleviate that issue.
>>The rear seat of the 1000 is adjustable up and down.
>>I am 6'4 and have no
>>trouble sitting too low in the back of our 1000 if
>>I don't raise the seat.
>>In fact the first time I flew it from the rear I assumed
>>I would need the
>>seat bottomed out. Big mistake! I couldn't see and
>>could only just reach the
>>rudder pedals. I felt like I was in a pit. Next flight
>>adjusted the seat
>>till my head just cleared the canopy and things where
>>totally different. Far
>>better vis
>>
>-------------------------------------
>The original adjustable rear seat, which was a hinged
>device held up by a seat belt strap with an adjustable
>buckle, has been removed from our DG1000 and replaced
>with a High Density Foam safety cushion, as the CFI
>and the Committee felt it was poorly engineered and
>dangerous. Indeed the strap adjuster broke during the
>brief period we had a demonstrator on trial for evaluation,
>even without any heavy landings. So I am afraid the
>option that Paul suggests is not open to me. By the
>way getting permission to do this simple modification
>cost the club a small fortune, because we had to get
>it approved and certified by EASA! F***ing Bureaucrats
>and F***ing European Commission again!
>
>I am 5' 10' tall with a fairly long back, but short
>legs, so I am quite tall sitting down. I regularly
>instruct in the K13, K21, Duo Discus, Grob G103, Bocian,
>and now the DG1000. The best forward view from the
>rear cockpit is offered by the K13 and the Duo Discus
>which both have one piece canopies, and the Bocian
>which has a large front canopy and flies in a rather
>nose down attitude. The K21, Grob 103 and DG1000 all
>have two piece canopies with a hoop in between them
>which somewhat restricts the forward view, especially
>in the case of the DG which seems to have a narrower
>cockpit and the hoop further forward. It is definitely
>the worst of the bunch in this respect!
>
>I will try a few extra cushions under my backside next
>time I fly it, as sitting higher probably would improve
>my view forward.
>
>Can I add a one-piece canopy to my wish list?
>
>Derek Copeland
>
>
>
>