Scheibe/Alliance SF-34

[Wallace Berry]

I'm looking for information on the Schiebe/Alliance SF-34. Would any of
our German or French brothers care to comment on the suitability of the
SF-34 as a club training glider? Handling qualities, comfort,
durability, soaring performance?

To my knowledge, there are only two examples of this glider in the U.S.
I flew one of them many years ago and my memory of the experience is
fading.

Thanks,

Wallace

[JW]

We have a SF-34 in our club as a trainer on "plastic", because we cannot
afford a more expensive two-seater as the ASK-21
we have also 2 ASK-13 for initial training on "wood"

The SF-34 is heavier on the stick, a real two-seater

I have flown the French version Alliance-34 a few times
The controls of the Alliance are easier, more like a single-seater
In France this glider is used for first solos

The soaring performances of both are rather modest, but OK for the price

Jan Waumans
Belgium








"Wallace Berry" > wrote in message
...
> I'm looking for information on the Schiebe/Alliance SF-34. Would any of
> our German or French brothers care to comment on the suitability of the
> SF-34 as a club training glider? Handling qualities, comfort,
> durability, soaring performance?
>
> To my knowledge, there are only two examples of this glider in the U.S.
> I flew one of them many years ago and my memory of the experience is
> fading.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wallace

[Wallace Berry]

In article >, "JW" >
wrote:

> We have a SF-34 in our club as a trainer on "plastic", because we cannot
> afford a more expensive two-seater as the ASK-21
> we have also 2 ASK-13 for initial training on "wood"
>
> The SF-34 is heavier on the stick, a real two-seater
>
> I have flown the French version Alliance-34 a few times
> The controls of the Alliance are easier, more like a single-seater
> In France this glider is used for first solos
>
> The soaring performances of both are rather modest, but OK for the price
>
> Jan Waumans
> Belgium
>
>

Great information. Thanks Jan. My club is in the same situation. We need
another two seater, we prefer plastic, but can't afford an ASK-21 or
even a Grob. A Schiebe SF-34 has been offered to us for a reasonable
price.

[JW]

To be honest the ASK-13's fly more than the SF

the cost per minute is lower, and instructors love the ASK-13

JW

"Wallace Berry" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "JW" >
> wrote:
>
> > We have a SF-34 in our club as a trainer on "plastic", because we cannot
> > afford a more expensive two-seater as the ASK-21
> > we have also 2 ASK-13 for initial training on "wood"
> >
> > The SF-34 is heavier on the stick, a real two-seater
> >
> > I have flown the French version Alliance-34 a few times
> > The controls of the Alliance are easier, more like a single-seater
> > In France this glider is used for first solos
> >
> > The soaring performances of both are rather modest, but OK for the price
> >
> > Jan Waumans
> > Belgium
> >
> >
>
> Great information. Thanks Jan. My club is in the same situation. We need
> another two seater, we prefer plastic, but can't afford an ASK-21 or
> even a Grob. A Schiebe SF-34 has been offered to us for a reasonable
> price.

[Wallace Berry]

In article >, "JW" >
wrote:

> To be honest the ASK-13's fly more than the SF
>
> the cost per minute is lower, and instructors love the ASK-13
>
> JW
>

Our current trainer is a Blanik L-23 which serves fairly well. Previous
to the Blanik we used a Ka-7. We considered importing one or more
ASK-13's back when the dollar was strong. Great ship but, alas, many
Americans are now too heavy and/or too tall to fit in either the Ka-7 or
ASK-13. We have a number of members who barely fit in the Blanik.
Luckily, we have an instructor who is relatively light.

Maybe flight instructors should resemble jockeys!

[Tim Mara]

I'd let the memories fade....I've flown the SF34 it was Schiebes attempt at
getting into the K21 Grob Twin market... IMHO it's just not a terrific
glider..in many ways it's like comparing the K13 to the Bergfalkes....some
of our German friends might help us out here but I've heard them explain it
like this, The K13's (and most K gliders) Fly like you feel.....the Schiebe
Gliders...."do things in the air".......
Construction is fair to not so fair....design is just missing something,
crude by current standards, it's essentially a 15 meter glass two
seater..Performance is probably a tad better than the K13's but don't expect
much over 30-1 regardless of the brochures...
tim
Wings & Wheels
www.wingsandwheels.com

"Wallace Berry" > wrote in message
...
> I'm looking for information on the Schiebe/Alliance SF-34. Would any of
> our German or French brothers care to comment on the suitability of the
> SF-34 as a club training glider? Handling qualities, comfort,
> durability, soaring performance?
>
> To my knowledge, there are only two examples of this glider in the U.S.
> I flew one of them many years ago and my memory of the experience is
> fading.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wallace

[Wallace Berry]

In article >,
"Tim Mara" > wrote:

> I'd let the memories fade....I've flown the SF34 it was Schiebes attempt at
> getting into the K21 Grob Twin market... IMHO it's just not a terrific
> glider..in many ways it's like comparing the K13 to the Bergfalkes....some
> of our German friends might help us out here but I've heard them explain it
> like this, The K13's (and most K gliders) Fly like you feel.....the Schiebe
> Gliders...."do things in the air".......
> Construction is fair to not so fair....design is just missing something,
> crude by current standards, it's essentially a 15 meter glass two
> seater..Performance is probably a tad better than the K13's but don't expect
> much over 30-1 regardless of the brochures...
> tim
> Wings & Wheels
> www.wingsandwheels.com
>


Others have told me the same thing about Schiebe gliders, that they just
don't handle that well. However, I've heard that the SF-25 is not bad.
My memory of the SF-34 was that it was somewhat rudimentary compared to
the Grob or ASK-21. My admittedly imperfect memory of the control feel,
was that it handled somewhat like a 2 seat 1-26, if that makes any
sense. I seem to remember that I liked the handling better than the
Grob. I definitely remember that my fingers got pinched against the
cockpit side when I actuated the divebrakes. I also remember quite well
that it would spin fairly easily, but would also recover easily.

About 30:1 is what I would expect considering the usual relationship
between claimed and actual performance.


It's hard to find any decent 2 seaters in the U.S. right now. Even tired
old L-13's are hard to come by at a reasonable price. The PW-6 looks
like a good trainer, but with the dollar weak, even that is too
expensive. Howsabout talking HPH into building a 2 seat equivalent to
the 304c?

Speaking of Glasflugels: What ever happened to that 2 place side-by-side
Glasflugel design?

[[email protected]]

I have a fair amount of time in the back seat of the SF-34. From a
CFI's, (at least this CFI), point of view, it's easier to fly than the
G103 in that the controls are more haromonized and it does well in weak
lift. At speeds above about seventy knots it seems to out run, (albeit
slowly), the G103. The useful load is better as most 103's in this
country have less useful load by virtue of their age and damage
history. From a student or at least a front seat point of view, there
is a bit less foot room than the 103 as the nose is more pointed. The
SF-34 ground handles better than the 103 because of the manner in which
it is so easily balance on the main wheel. There is quite a lot of
room in the back seat and I even need some extra cushions, (I'm 5' 10")
in order to reach the stick in it's full forward position. There are
only two in the US that I know of and the one I've been flying is at
the Moriarty airport in NM. All-in-all, the SF-34 is a lot of bang for
the buck.

Regards,

Billy Hill

[Peter F]

Hi,

The build quality of the scheibe SF34s is very *variable*
There has been one case in the UK where the rear fuselage
failed in flight (but fortunately didn't quite fall
off)
Not sure if there are any details available on the
BGA website

The SF also has less span than a K21 or Grob so I'm
surprised at those who say it climbs better in weak
lift

[Graeme Cant]

Wallace Berry wrote:
> .....snip... Great ship but, alas, many
> Americans are now too heavy and/or too tall to fit in either the Ka-7 or
> ASK-13. We have a number of members who barely fit in the Blanik.
> Luckily, we have an instructor who is relatively light.
>
> Maybe flight instructors should resemble jockeys!

We've found this to be an increasing problem. We have two K13s. One
has had the front panel cut away at the bottom and it is the only one
that a number of taller members can fit in and have proper rudder
control. The young are becoming heavier, but even more are becoming taller.

Our Puchacz is the best for fitting all heights but it still has the
110kg limit.

Graeme Cant

[Tim Mara]

> It's hard to find any decent 2 seaters in the U.S. right now. Even tired
> old L-13's are hard to come by at a reasonable price. The PW-6 looks
> like a good trainer, but with the dollar weak, even that is too
> expensive. Howsabout talking HPH into building a 2 seat equivalent to
> the 304c?

That would be a great idea....and I know it has at least crossed the minds
of the HpH team...but the cost to develop a new two seat trainer and bring
it to the market would today be I think, intolerable. We're even seeing
resistance to the high costs of older and current designs in the two place
market and the development costs of these were covered years ago. I doubt
there is market enough for 100-200 new two seat gliders at
$100,000 -$150,000 each today and that's likely what would be needed for
anyone to be successful with a new design.
>
> Speaking of Glasflugels: What ever happened to that 2 place side-by-side
> Glasflugel design?

that and many other "Hanle" brainstorms were unfortunately lost with his
untimely passing.
tim

[Charles Yeates]

Tim

Fortunately, the factory price of a PW-6, instrumented in both cockpits
is US 60,000 today -- trailer extra

>I doubt there is market enough for 100-200 new two seat gliders at
>$100,000 -$150,000 each today and that's likely what would be needed for
>anyone to be successful with a new design.
>

[Bill Daniels]

"Charles Yeates" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tim
>
> Fortunately, the factory price of a PW-6, instrumented in both cockpits is
> US 60,000 today -- trailer extra
>
>>I doubt there is market enough for 100-200 new two seat gliders at
>>$100,000 -$150,000 each today and that's likely what would be needed for
>>anyone to be successful with a new design.
>>
>
I know Charles is the North American dealer and he's pushing his product but
this is a really great deal. I've flown his PW-6 and it' s a sweet, very
well built trainer. If anything, Charles is understating the PW-6's
qualities. It deserves to be on everybodys short list for a new trainer.

The only concern I have is that the low mounted tailplane has elevator
balance horns with a small gap between the stabilizer and horn. If you
operate from a trashy, littered airfield there is a tiny chance FOD could
get jammed in that gap. On any respectable airfield, that should never be a
concern.

Disclaimer: I have no financial connection.

Bill Daniels

[Wallace Berry]

I campaigned hard in my club for a PW-6, but the dollar fell faster than
I could convince membership. Oh to have had the foresight to have bought
the PW-5/PW6 package when the dollar was strong!

[Wallace Berry]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> I have a fair amount of time in the back seat of the SF-34. From a
> CFI's, (at least this CFI), point of view, it's easier to fly than the
> G103 in that the controls are more haromonized and it does well in weak
> lift. At speeds above about seventy knots it seems to out run, (albeit
> slowly), the G103. The useful load is better as most 103's in this
> country have less useful load by virtue of their age and damage
> history. From a student or at least a front seat point of view, there
> is a bit less foot room than the 103 as the nose is more pointed. The
> SF-34 ground handles better than the 103 because of the manner in which
> it is so easily balance on the main wheel. There is quite a lot of
> room in the back seat and I even need some extra cushions, (I'm 5' 10")
> in order to reach the stick in it's full forward position. There are
> only two in the US that I know of and the one I've been flying is at
> the Moriarty airport in NM. All-in-all, the SF-34 is a lot of bang for
> the buck.
>
> Regards,
>
> Billy Hill
>

Thanks for the info. I flew the other one 3 times when it was based at
Bermadoo high about 20 years ago (hi Frank!). Once from the front seat
and twice from the back giving rides. My faint recollection is that it
was a pleasant ship to fly. Except for an ominous clunking that sounded
like the wings were trying to fall off. As it turns out, there was
eventually an AD on that because the wings WERE trying to fall off. I
trust the wing issue has been dealt with on the Moriarty SF-34.

Now that you mention it, I do remember the ease of ground handling.

[Walter Kronester]

To see some IGC files of SF-34 flights look for example there:
http://www.onlinecontest.de/olcphp/2003/ausw_wertung.php?olc=olc-d&spr=en&ein_verein=604&dclp=03aec6fd68d63be87a1a0b09ba100d9f

[Bob Johnson]

wrote:

> "The useful load is better as most 103's in this
> country have less useful load by virtue of their age and damage
> history."


Billy,

How does one calibrate a ship's useful load by virtue of its age and DH?
As far as DH goes, George Applebay used to maintain a properly repaired
ship is stronger than original, albeit a mite heavier.

I'd be interested in your comments ---

Thanks,

Bob Johnson

[Charles Yeates]

Bob

It's the heavier that counts to reduce the allowable load limit

> albeit a mite heavier.

[Bob Johnson]

Charles Yeates wrote:
>
>
> Bob
>
> It's the heavier that counts to reduce the allowable load limit
>
> > albeit a mite heavier.
>
>
>
>
Thanks, Charles I agree -- what's the calculation?

Bob

[[email protected]]

Bob:
Quite simple actually. Max gross weight doesn't change, but as gliders
get older and equipment is added or someone paints over the old gel
without grinding down to the glass, or grinds down to the glass them
repaints/gels and profiles the wings, they seem to get heavier. More
so if some repairs have been made. George is correct in that the glider
is most likely stronger, but increased strength does nothing for the
useful load. If the weight of the glider increases, but the max gross
doesn't then what suffers? The useful load.

Regards,

Billy Hill

[HL Falbaum]

The whole point is being missed!

A 2 place ship with handling flaws, but which can demonstrate the necessary
points and is affordable, is far superior to a better ship that is
unaffordable!

Buy it--save up--sell it later!

--
Hartley Falbaum


"Wallace Berry" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
>> I have a fair amount of time in the back seat of the SF-34. From a
>> CFI's, (at least this CFI), point of view, it's easier to fly than the
>> G103 in that the controls are more haromonized and it does well in weak
>> lift. At speeds above about seventy knots it seems to out run, (albeit
>> slowly), the G103. The useful load is better as most 103's in this
>> country have less useful load by virtue of their age and damage
>> history. From a student or at least a front seat point of view, there
>> is a bit less foot room than the 103 as the nose is more pointed. The
>> SF-34 ground handles better than the 103 because of the manner in which
>> it is so easily balance on the main wheel. There is quite a lot of
>> room in the back seat and I even need some extra cushions, (I'm 5' 10")
>> in order to reach the stick in it's full forward position. There are
>> only two in the US that I know of and the one I've been flying is at
>> the Moriarty airport in NM. All-in-all, the SF-34 is a lot of bang for
>> the buck.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Billy Hill
>>
>
> Thanks for the info. I flew the other one 3 times when it was based at
> Bermadoo high about 20 years ago (hi Frank!). Once from the front seat
> and twice from the back giving rides. My faint recollection is that it
> was a pleasant ship to fly. Except for an ominous clunking that sounded
> like the wings were trying to fall off. As it turns out, there was
> eventually an AD on that because the wings WERE trying to fall off. I
> trust the wing issue has been dealt with on the Moriarty SF-34.
>
> Now that you mention it, I do remember the ease of ground handling.

[Wallace Berry]

In article >,
"HL Falbaum" > wrote:

> The whole point is being missed!
>
> A 2 place ship with handling flaws, but which can demonstrate the necessary
> points and is affordable, is far superior to a better ship that is
> unaffordable!
>
> Buy it--save up--sell it later!
>
> --
> Hartley Falbaum
>


Good point Hartley. Our membership is at a point right now that we have
need of both another 2 seater and another single place. We can only
afford one bird right now, so we pretty much decided to go with whatever
good deal popped up. An LS-4 is at the top of our list for a single
seater, although we've been looking at baby Grob's and Juniors. We have
procrastinated and missed a good Cirrus 75 (fixed stabilizer) with the
enhanced dive brakes that would have been a good club ship. We also
missed out on pretty good Twin Astir (am I allowed to use the words
"good" and "Twin Astir" in the same sentence"?). We have so many pilots
at 6 feet and over 200 lbs that cockpit size is a major constraint.

Charlie Finn is going out to look at the SF-34 tomorrow. If it is as
represented, we are going to buy it. However, it don't got no treller.
Wanna loan us the MGSA ASK-21 trailer? Actually, we have a trailer, but
it's originally for a 2-33 so it's not set up for a glass ship. The guys
at Moriarty said they would set it up for us if we bring it out. Whew,
gonna be a long ride to N.M. and back.

Hope to see you in Cordele.

[HL Falbaum]

Wally:

Could we lay up some moulds and make a trailer like your Libelle has?
Actually a ride to Moriarty could be a worthwhile trip anyway. I hear they
have some fairly good soaring there sometimes!

Cheers!
-
Hartley Falbaum


"Wallace Berry" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "HL Falbaum" > wrote:
>
>> The whole point is being missed!
>>
>> A 2 place ship with handling flaws, but which can demonstrate the
>> necessary
>> points and is affordable, is far superior to a better ship that is
>> unaffordable!
>>
>> Buy it--save up--sell it later!
>>
>> --
>> Hartley Falbaum
>>
>
>
> Good point Hartley. Our membership is at a point right now that we have
> need of both another 2 seater and another single place. We can only
> afford one bird right now, so we pretty much decided to go with whatever
> good deal popped up. An LS-4 is at the top of our list for a single
> seater, although we've been looking at baby Grob's and Juniors. We have
> procrastinated and missed a good Cirrus 75 (fixed stabilizer) with the
> enhanced dive brakes that would have been a good club ship. We also
> missed out on pretty good Twin Astir (am I allowed to use the words
> "good" and "Twin Astir" in the same sentence"?). We have so many pilots
> at 6 feet and over 200 lbs that cockpit size is a major constraint.
>
> Charlie Finn is going out to look at the SF-34 tomorrow. If it is as
> represented, we are going to buy it. However, it don't got no treller.
> Wanna loan us the MGSA ASK-21 trailer? Actually, we have a trailer, but
> it's originally for a 2-33 so it's not set up for a glass ship. The guys
> at Moriarty said they would set it up for us if we bring it out. Whew,
> gonna be a long ride to N.M. and back.
>
> Hope to see you in Cordele.

[Wallace Berry]

In article >,
"HL Falbaum" > wrote:

> Wally:
>
> Could we lay up some moulds and make a trailer like your Libelle has?
> Actually a ride to Moriarty could be a worthwhile trip anyway. I hear they
> have some fairly good soaring there sometimes!
>
> Cheers!
> -
> Hartley Falbaum
>


Actually, I'm in negotiations to sell my trailer to a major manufacturer
of sex toys. They want to use it as part of a nationwide marketing
campaign. Sort of like the Oscar Meyer "Weinermobile".