Handicap bargains

[Ian Cant]

I notice that a Schweizer 2-32 with a published L/D
of 33 is handicapped at 1.500. This seems like a great
bargain, the same as a Falke SF-25C at 1.500 but with
only about 22 L/D. Are there other equally great deals
out there ? Or any outstandingly heavily handicapped
types ?

Ian

[[email protected]]

Well, the nice thing about going XC in a 2-32 is that you could take
your crew (both of them, even!) with you. And they would definitely be
needed when it became time to derig...

In my experience they seem about equal to a G-103, perhaps a bit weaker
in climb but better on the run. Definitely a strong weather ship.

Otherwise, nice flying ship, if a bit heavy. And hard to find - as
they are in great demand at commercial operations in the US.

Great spin trainers, by the way!

[Ian Cant]

...and a G103 is handicapped at 1.14. 'IF' it became
time to derig the larger crew might be helpful, but
with that kind of handicap in any contest, the 2-32
can fly much more conservatively and get home while
the poor Grob is picking its landout field.

Seriously, is the handicap for the 2-32 real or just
a typo somewhere ?

Ian





At 17:18 28 December 2005, wrote:
>Well, the nice thing about going XC in a 2-32 is that
>you could take
>your crew (both of them, even!) with you. And they
>would definitely be
>needed when it became time to derig...
>
>In my experience they seem about equal to a G-103,
>perhaps a bit weaker
>in climb but better on the run. Definitely a strong
>weather ship.
>
>Otherwise, nice flying ship, if a bit heavy. And hard
>to find - as
>they are in great demand at commercial operations in
>the US.
>
>Great spin trainers, by the way!
>
>

[[email protected]]

My first kweschun would be "is the published L/D of 33 accurate?"

Wonder if DJ ever did a flight test ...

~ted/2NO

[Jeremy Zawodny]

wrote:
> My first kweschun would be "is the published L/D of 33 accurate?"
>
> Wonder if DJ ever did a flight test ...

And since no new 2-32s have been made for quite some time, you'd be hard
pressed to find one with smooth wings!

Jeremy

[BTIZ]

I don't see how you can compute a "handicap" into "landout"
32L/d in the 2-32 at 65mph? and the 36L/d in the G103 at 55knt?

I would think that means the 2-32 has a higher sink rate in fpm.. but I'd
have to go dig out some POHs to know for sure.

BT

"Ian Cant" > wrote in message
...
> ..and a G103 is handicapped at 1.14. 'IF' it became
> time to derig the larger crew might be helpful, but
> with that kind of handicap in any contest, the 2-32
> can fly much more conservatively and get home while
> the poor Grob is picking its landout field.
>
> Seriously, is the handicap for the 2-32 real or just
> a typo somewhere ?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>
> At 17:18 28 December 2005, wrote:
>>Well, the nice thing about going XC in a 2-32 is that
>>you could take
>>your crew (both of them, even!) with you. And they
>>would definitely be
>>needed when it became time to derig...
>>
>>In my experience they seem about equal to a G-103,
>>perhaps a bit weaker
>>in climb but better on the run. Definitely a strong
>>weather ship.
>>
>>Otherwise, nice flying ship, if a bit heavy. And hard
>>to find - as
>>they are in great demand at commercial operations in
>>the US.
>>
>>Great spin trainers, by the way!
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Ian Cant]

Being simplistic, a difference in handicap between
1.5 and 1.14 means that for the same handicapped distance
the 2-32 does not need to fly nearly as far as the
Grob [assuming minimum time is met]. So the chance
of making it home would seem to be higher, no ?

But again, allowing for the old wings and the maker's
optimism [factors which surely apply also to the Grob
and the SF-25], is the 2-32 handicap reasonably representative
of actual relative performance ? And are there any
other models which seem at first glance excessively
high or excessively low ?

Ian





At 00:42 29 December 2005, Btiz wrote:
>I don't see how you can compute a 'handicap' into 'landout'
>32L/d in the 2-32 at 65mph? and the 36L/d in the G103
>at 55knt?
>
>I would think that means the 2-32 has a higher sink
>rate in fpm.. but I'd
>have to go dig out some POHs to know for sure.
>
>BT
>
>'Ian Cant' wrote in message
...
>> ..and a G103 is handicapped at 1.14. 'IF' it became
>> time to derig the larger crew might be helpful, but
>> with that kind of handicap in any contest, the 2-32
>> can fly much more conservatively and get home while
>> the poor Grob is picking its landout field.
>>
>> Seriously, is the handicap for the 2-32 real or just
>> a typo somewhere ?
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 17:18 28 December 2005, wrote:
>>>Well, the nice thing about going XC in a 2-32 is that
>>>you could take
>>>your crew (both of them, even!) with you. And they
>>>would definitely be
>>>needed when it became time to derig...
>>>
>>>In my experience they seem about equal to a G-103,
>>>perhaps a bit weaker
>>>in climb but better on the run. Definitely a strong
>>>weather ship.
>>>
>>>Otherwise, nice flying ship, if a bit heavy. And hard
>>>to find - as
>>>they are in great demand at commercial operations in
>>>the US.
>>>
>>>Great spin trainers, by the way!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Shawn]

Ian Cant wrote:
> Being simplistic, a difference in handicap between
> 1.5 and 1.14 means that for the same handicapped distance
> the 2-32 does not need to fly nearly as far as the
> Grob [assuming minimum time is met]. So the chance
> of making it home would seem to be higher, no ?
>
> But again, allowing for the old wings and the maker's
> optimism [factors which surely apply also to the Grob
> and the SF-25], is the 2-32 handicap reasonably representative
> of actual relative performance ? And are there any
> other models which seem at first glance excessively
> high or excessively low ?

Does the 2-32 have a highly laminar-flow airfoil? If not (which is what
I suspect, entirely unencumbered by data), it might preserve its
performance better than an old glass ship, e.g. a Grob 103, designed
with a relatively high laminar-flow wing which has been distorted and
dinged over time.


Shawn

[[email protected]]

Shawn, I think you are on the right track.

My admittedly unscientific comparison is between a well-used 2-32 (no
laminar flow on those wings any more - if ever!) and a couple of ridden
hard and put away wet, tied out in the Arizona desert for all their
working lives, G-103 Acros. I actually prefer the 2-32 over the 103,
as the control harmony is much nicer - closer to a heavy K-21. It's
like a big Cadillac cruising around with a couple of giggling
teenyboppers in the back, or a father with his wide-eyed little son
next to him...or for that matter a happy XXL size pax in the front seat
who has been told he can't fit in any other glider.

Plus the 2-32 is such a blast to spin, and it's got those awesome
terminal-velocity limiting brakes; great for getting a paying passenger
back on the ground before he/she gets "upset"! It's a shame acro is no
longer allowed by the chicken**** Schweizer lawyers - anyone who saw
Laz Horvath's acro routine (flown from the back seat with his future
ex-wife in the front) which finished with a half reverse cuban 8
straight to a landing will never forget it!

And it was a secret X plane (X-26A/B) and saw combat in Vietnam
(slighly modified as the YO-3A)!

Anyway, while it takes work to climb - fast and steep if you hope to go
up at all, much like Moffatt's description of the HP-8 (no prizes for
guessing what book Santa brought for Christmas), once you got it up to
speed, it seemes to be flatter than those (probably no longer very
laminar) workhorse 103s.

All that being said, new vs new, I would probably have to put my money
on the plebian Grobs, performance-wise (sigh).

Kirk
66
2-32 fan