Manual for Schweitzer 2-32

[Daniel L. Lieberman]

I will be learning to fly a Schweitzer 2-32 after Thanksgiving.

Does anyone know where I can get a POH that will list generic payload and
Vspeeds etc.

TIA.

Daniel L. Lieberman

[Pete Brown]

We have electronic copies of the following manuals on our
Alaska Mountain Soaring group in our files section:

SGS 1-34, 2-32, 2-33, ASK-21, L-13, L-23, and Pilatus B-4.

Anyone can sign up and download the manuals. No spamming or
mail if you follow the Yahoo directions carefully on joining
the group. We have electronic copies of both the SGS 2-33
and 2-32 manuals.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akmtnsoaring/
Pete Brown
Alaska Mountain Soaring Assn.


Daniel L. Lieberman wrote:
> I will be learning to fly a Schweitzer 2-32 after Thanksgiving.
>
> Does anyone know where I can get a POH that will list generic payload and
> Vspeeds etc.
>
> TIA.
>
> Daniel L. Lieberman
>
>
>

--

Peter D. Brown
http://home.gci.net/~pdb/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akmtnsoaring/

[kirk.stant]

Great glider - lots of fun, comfortable, runs with a G-103. Climbs OK
if you really crank it over and slow it down to just above stall - just
pay attention to the yaw string and the prestall nibble.

Awesome terminal velocity divebrakes - worth a high tow to check them
out. No excuse for ever getting slow in the pattern - just come in
high and fast and slow down on final.

Lands in a real flat attitude - have to resist the temptation to land
really low-energy as it's real easy to touch the tailwheel first.

Spins nice, too!

Flies better from the backseat - just make sure the stick is secure -
it can get exciting on takeoff when you think the stick is starting to
come out of it's socket!

Kirk
66

[Gunnar]

Go to:

www.soarboulder.org

Look under fleet, there is a manual posted there for our 2-32.

It can bite you!

Gunnar

[Daniel L. Lieberman]

Pete,

Thanks for the manual, The only thing it lacks is an empty weight.( Or I
missed it. ) I think there will not be any problem with me weighing 230.

Once again, thanks.

Daniel
"Pete Brown" > wrote in message
...
> We have electronic copies of the following manuals on our Alaska Mountain
> Soaring group in our files section:
>
> SGS 1-34, 2-32, 2-33, ASK-21, L-13, L-23, and Pilatus B-4.
>
> Anyone can sign up and download the manuals. No spamming or mail if you
> follow the Yahoo directions carefully on joining the group. We have
> electronic copies of both the SGS 2-33 and 2-32 manuals.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akmtnsoaring/
> Pete Brown
> Alaska Mountain Soaring Assn.
>
>
> Daniel L. Lieberman wrote:
>> I will be learning to fly a Schweitzer 2-32 after Thanksgiving.
>>
>> Does anyone know where I can get a POH that will list generic payload and
>> Vspeeds etc.
>>
>> TIA.
>>
>> Daniel L. Lieberman
>>
>
> --
>
> Peter D. Brown
> http://home.gci.net/~pdb/
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akmtnsoaring/
>
>
>

[5Z]

On Nov 19, 4:30 pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> Awesome terminal velocity divebrakes - worth a high tow to check them
> out. No excuse for ever getting slow in the pattern - just come in
> high and fast and slow down on final.

Back in the 1970's, Les Horvath used to do an airshow routine in one.
The landing pattern was interesting....

Fly downwind right over the runway at 800-1000' AGL, then at some
distance beyond the threshold, he'd open the dive brakes and push over
into a vertical dive, roll 180 and pull out of the dive and complete
the landing.

Pretty cool!

-Tom

[kirk.stant]

> Back in the 1970's, Les Horvath used to do an airshow routine in one.
> The landing pattern was interesting....
>
> Fly downwind right over the runway at 800-1000' AGL, then at some
> distance beyond the threshold, he'd open the dive brakes and push over
> into a vertical dive, roll 180 and pull out of the dive and complete
> the landing.
>
> Pretty cool!
>
> -Tom

Roger that! One day at Estrella (back around 1977, I think) I watched
Les practice his airshow routine. He finished with a reverse half
cuban 8 from the deck to a landing - with his wife in the front seat!

That 2-32 later was crashed - as far as I know the remains are still in
the weeds and creosote bushes next to the hangar at Estrella...

The 2-32 is the one Schweizer that should still be in production, IMHO.

Kirk

[Bill Daniels]

When the 2-32 was first introduced into Southern California in a
promotional tour around 1964, the slapping of foreheads by the aeronautical
engineering community sounded like applause at Carnegie Hall.
Why, they asked, did you use an old NACA turbulent flow airfoil at the wing
tips which had a very sharp stall and linearly interpolate to a gentle
stalling laminar flow section at the root? What do you call the section in
between? Why do the tips stall before the root? Do you understand
stall/spin behavior?

The structural engineers wondered aloud about the very light wings and very
heavy fuselage. They had been schooled to see any "oil canning" of wing
skins as totally unacceptable. Needless to say, they were appalled by the
2-32's wing skins.

Pilots used to Dick Schreders and Irv Prue's designs asked why such a large
glider had such poor performance. This bad impression was exceeded only by
the introduction of the 2-33 a few months later.

The first Libelle's, Phoebii and Diamonts were introduced about the same
time. One instantly felt that this was an inflection point in aeronautics.
As they say, the rest is history.


Bill Daniels


"kirk.stant" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> Back in the 1970's, Les Horvath used to do an airshow routine in one.
>> The landing pattern was interesting....
>>
>> Fly downwind right over the runway at 800-1000' AGL, then at some
>> distance beyond the threshold, he'd open the dive brakes and push over
>> into a vertical dive, roll 180 and pull out of the dive and complete
>> the landing.
>>
>> Pretty cool!
>>
>> -Tom
>
> Roger that! One day at Estrella (back around 1977, I think) I watched
> Les practice his airshow routine. He finished with a reverse half
> cuban 8 from the deck to a landing - with his wife in the front seat!
>
> That 2-32 later was crashed - as far as I know the remains are still in
> the weeds and creosote bushes next to the hangar at Estrella...
>
> The 2-32 is the one Schweizer that should still be in production, IMHO.
>
> Kirk
>

[kirk.stant]

Bill Daniels wrote:

> Pilots used to Dick Schreders and Irv Prue's designs asked why such a large
> glider had such poor performance. This bad impression was exceeded only by
> the introduction of the 2-33 a few months later.
>
> The first Libelle's, Phoebii and Diamonts were introduced about the same
> time. One instantly felt that this was an inflection point in aeronautics.
> As they say, the rest is history.

Poor performance? It's better than any other 3-seat glider out there!

And on a strong day, it doesn't give up a lot to a G-103 or ASK-21.

Especially if all three spend all their lives tied out and working
hard. When the last plastic pig has been chopped up and carted off,
there will probably still be a 2-32 giving rides with giggling
teenagers or grandfathers and grandsons in the back seat (unless the
last one has spun in, of course - the glider, not the grandfather).

Comparing the Beast to an HP, Prue, or single seat glass is like
comparing a potato to a grape! Or vodka to wine, come to think of it.

Totally concur about the 2-33, though - what were they thinking!

Kirk
66

[[email protected]]

Lots of people seem to get a lot of joy from bad mouthing the
Schweitzer sailplanes, but where would we be, here in the USA, without
them? At least those two brothers were actually designing and building
sailplanes for the market here! Since they quit building sailplanes,
nobody, except Windward Design, has had the balls to put into
production, any sailplanes here in the USA. How many people would have
never gone up in a sailplane if the Schweitzers hadn't built so many
of them? How much more expensive would the plastic sailplanes that are
here in the USA be, then and now, if it weren't for the hundreds of
Schweitzers, built here, and still soaring here, coast to coast, every
weekend. They don't look all that sexy, and they fall out of the sky
when you leave the lift, but it sure beats being on the ground! The
back seat is uncomfortable, but I've spent many hours having and
sharing lots of fun, and incredible beauty, that would not have
happened if it had not been for the brothers Schweitzer! Show me a
plastic two place, in good shape, for $10,000! So until The Government
decides to spend $4000,000,000.00 on new plastic sailplanes for all the
soaring pilots here, instead of Policing the world, I'll keep soaring
my Schweitzer 2-33, and Schweitzer 2-32, and you'll not hear me bitch
about them,....much. I've been having more fun than one person
should be allowed to have, winching my Schweitzers!



kirk.stant wrote:
> Bill Daniels wrote:
>
> > Pilots used to Dick Schreders and Irv Prue's designs asked why such a large
> > glider had such poor performance. This bad impression was exceeded only by
> > the introduction of the 2-33 a few months later.
> >
> > The first Libelle's, Phoebii and Diamonts were introduced about the same
> > time. One instantly felt that this was an inflection point in aeronautics.
> > As they say, the rest is history.
>
> Poor performance? It's better than any other 3-seat glider out there!
>
> And on a strong day, it doesn't give up a lot to a G-103 or ASK-21.
>
> Especially if all three spend all their lives tied out and working
> hard. When the last plastic pig has been chopped up and carted off,
> there will probably still be a 2-32 giving rides with giggling
> teenagers or grandfathers and grandsons in the back seat (unless the
> last one has spun in, of course - the glider, not the grandfather).
>
> Comparing the Beast to an HP, Prue, or single seat glass is like
> comparing a potato to a grape! Or vodka to wine, come to think of it.
>
> Totally concur about the 2-33, though - what were they thinking!
>
> Kirk
> 66

[John H. Campbell]

> Hmmm - something like:
> 2-22

Yeah, the 2-33 fuselage is the same as the 2-22's, the wings could be
exchanged in principle. 52' and 23:1 was a big improvement over 40' and
18:1. BTW, Schweizer is without a "t", like Swiss, unlike Dr. Albert.

[Bill Daniels]

My point is not that the US should not have made gliders or that Schweizer
should not have made them. It's that those gliders should have been far
better than they were. And they would have been far better if the vast
repository of aeronautical knowledge available in the US aerospace industry
was utilized.

During the 1960's much of that knowledge resided in Southern California -
far from upstate NY. Many of those aeronautical engineers were glider
pilots and would have gladly donated their knowledge if asked. They weren't
asked and the results show it. That's the tragedy.

Bill Daniels


"John H. Campbell" <jhpc@greeleynet-dot-com> wrote in message
...
>> Hmmm - something like:
>> 2-22
>
> Yeah, the 2-33 fuselage is the same as the 2-22's, the wings could be
> exchanged in principle. 52' and 23:1 was a big improvement over 40' and
> 18:1. BTW, Schweizer is without a "t", like Swiss, unlike Dr. Albert.

[Marc Ramsey]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> During the 1960's much of that knowledge resided in Southern California -
> far from upstate NY. Many of those aeronautical engineers were glider
> pilots and would have gladly donated their knowledge if asked. They weren't
> asked and the results show it. That's the tragedy.

Heck, if Schweizer had taken advice from engineers in Silicon Valley,
we'd all be flying 100:1 gliders that cost $1.98 to manufacture. That's
the real tragedy...

[Peter Smith]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Bill Daniels wrote:
> > During the 1960's much of that knowledge resided in Southern California -
> > far from upstate NY. Many of those aeronautical engineers were glider
> > pilots and would have gladly donated their knowledge if asked. They weren't
> > asked and the results show it. That's the tragedy.
>
> Heck, if Schweizer had taken advice from engineers in Silicon Valley,
> we'd all be flying 100:1 gliders that cost $1.98 to manufacture. That's
> the real tragedy...

Heck, if Schweizer had taken advice from Silicon Valley, they probably
wouldn't have stayed in business for over 75 years. By the way, there
were 3 brothers, not 2, & one of them is still alive. Bill, a great guy
& very generous & helpful man. As Director of the National Soaring
Museum, I miss Paul a whole lot, but Bill is very devoted to & still
interested in soaring. Did I mention he's a great guy?

[John H. Campbell]

Peter Smith wrote:
> Marc Ramsey wrote:
>> Bill Daniels wrote:
>>> During the 1960's much of that knowledge resided in Southern California -
>>> far from upstate NY. Many of those aeronautical engineers were glider
>>> pilots and would have gladly donated their knowledge if asked. They weren't
>>> asked and the results show it. That's the tragedy.
>> Heck, if Schweizer had taken advice from engineers in Silicon Valley,
>> we'd all be flying 100:1 gliders that cost $1.98 to manufacture. That's
>> the real tragedy...
>
> Heck, if Schweizer had taken advice from Silicon Valley, they probably
> wouldn't have stayed in business for over 75 years. By the way, there
> were 3 brothers, not 2, & one of them is still alive. Bill, a great guy
> & very generous & helpful man. As Director of the National Soaring
> Museum, I miss Paul a whole lot, but Bill is very devoted to & still
> interested in soaring. Did I mention he's a great guy?
>

He's the one that tells the joke about his own name in his autobio
"Soaring with the Schweizers": Sez the ground radio voice to Bill who
identified himself as "W. Schweizer": "Is that the missionary, the
swiss cheese maker, or the sailplane manufacturer?". To that, one can
more recently add "the conservative writer?" (z), "the christian
paleontologist?" (tz), "the state governor?" (tz)...

[kirk.stant]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
>
> >Totally concur about the 2-33, though - what were they thinking!
> Hmmm - something like:
> 2-22
> rugged
> reliable
> safe
> --
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

Yep, I sure wish I was going to fly to Phoenix in a nice old DC-7 this
afternoon instead of a nice new A-320, those old recips are so rugged,
reliable, and safe!

Actually, having flown in DC-7s way back in the dark ages (and Connies,
C-54s, even C-119s!), I do kinda miss them.

Sorry, I just have a hard time warming to a high-wing strutted glider
designed after something as beautiful (my opinion, I agree) as the
Blanik (the original Warsaw Pact milspec ones - with the beautiful
flush riveting, etc...).

To each his own, I suppose. Happy Thanksgiving!

Kirk
66

[kirk.stant]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> The question was what Schweitzer had in mind when the 2-33
> was designed. The designers of the DC-7 designed for their
> times, just like the designers of the 2-33. With decades of
> hindsight, they probably could have done better, but that
> comment applies to everything that's ever been built. They
> were trying to build something better than the 2-22 that met
> the needs of their customers. IMHO, they succeeded.


I would have to disagree. The DC-7 was state of the art when designed
and put in use - but had a relatively short life in airline service
before being replaced by the first generation of jets (707, DC-8, etc).
The 2-33 was definitely NOT state of the art in glider trainers when
designed (think Blanik, Ka-7) but the bare minimum improvement over the
truly antique 2-22 that could be flogged on the US (and Canadian)
gliding community. They didn't meet the needs of their customers -
they imposed it, and we are still paying the price.

Then they bailed out of gliders. Yeah, I know, the Germans forced them
out of business. Tell that to Cessna or Piper...

If that is your definition of success, so be it.

Check out the success of clubs/schools that have moved away from 2-33s
to glass. It might surprise you.

Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving!

Kirk

[Bill Daniels]

"kirk.stant" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
>> The question was what Schweitzer had in mind when the 2-33
>> was designed. The designers of the DC-7 designed for their
>> times, just like the designers of the 2-33. With decades of
>> hindsight, they probably could have done better, but that
>> comment applies to everything that's ever been built. They
>> were trying to build something better than the 2-22 that met
>> the needs of their customers. IMHO, they succeeded.
>
>
> I would have to disagree. The DC-7 was state of the art when designed
> and put in use - but had a relatively short life in airline service
> before being replaced by the first generation of jets (707, DC-8, etc).
> The 2-33 was definitely NOT state of the art in glider trainers when
> designed (think Blanik, Ka-7) but the bare minimum improvement over the
> truly antique 2-22 that could be flogged on the US (and Canadian)
> gliding community. They didn't meet the needs of their customers -
> they imposed it, and we are still paying the price.
>
> Then they bailed out of gliders. Yeah, I know, the Germans forced them
> out of business. Tell that to Cessna or Piper...
>
> If that is your definition of success, so be it.
>
> Check out the success of clubs/schools that have moved away from 2-33s
> to glass. It might surprise you.
>
> Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving!
>
> Kirk
>

Actually, the K-7 and Blanik L-13 preceeded the 2-33 by about a decade. The
beautiful K13 was a 2-33 contemporary.

If you look at the gliders in the link Uli Neumann provided (
http://www.luftarchiv.de/ ) you will see designs from the 1930's that appear
to be 2-33 equivalents. You could say that the 2-33 was a bad copy of a
1930's German design, produced in the 1970's and, unfortunately, still in
service in the 21st century.

One can only wonder what would have happened if Schweizer had produced a K13
equivalent.

Bill Daniels

[Marc Ramsey]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> One can only wonder what would have happened if Schweizer had produced a K13
> equivalent.

During the 60s and 70s I would guess the ratio of 2-33s purchased in
the US versus K7s, K13s, and Blaniks brought here was something in
excess of 20:1. Nobody forced anyone to buy 2-33s, Schweizer simply
built what people here wanted to buy...

Marc

[Andreas Maurer]

Hi Todd,

On 22 Nov 2006 14:45:01 -0600, T o d d P a t t i s t
> wrote:

>My "definition of success" is that lots of gliders get sold
>to people who want to buy them and that lots of people fly
>them and enjoy flying them.

Well... if it really were "lots of people fly them and enjoy flying
them" I wouldn't have to read threads like this on RAS once per
month... ;)


Bye
Andreas

[Frank Whiteley]

My first club had a K-7, a leased K-2, a K-13, a K-6, and eventually
at Pilatus B-4.

Compared to a 2-33 or L-13, the K series were quick and easy to rig and
de-rig. The others, of course, were left rigged and likely tied out.

30 years ago, we arrived about 8:30am to get our names on the list and
had the fleet rigged by 9:30am, with some flying at 9am. The private
ships were generally all rigged by 10:30am and flying starting about
11am. Many hands make truly light work. Today, private owners mostly
have one-man rig gear and don't seek much help. Instead of being
rigged and ready in 30 minutes, we now fiddle with this and that for
1.5-2.0 hours. Some complain they don't know new club members, but
they don't interact. Training starts at 9am with a student,
instructor, and tow pilot. Usually no one else is around until 10am,
when they start rigging their own ships.

PW-6 and K-21 take little time to rig. G-103 a bit longer. They
compare very favorably with the K-2, K-7, and K-13. I think your group
missed out.

BTW, I soloed in a K-7 and did my bronze hours in a K-13. Both rigged
and derigged daily as we had a modest hangar stuffed with 4-5 derigged
gliders, two tow planes, a field vehicle, launch point trailer and work
bench.

Damn, gotta dig through through my old pictures.

Frank Whiteley


T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>
> >Actually, the K-7 and Blanik L-13 preceeded the 2-33 by about a decade. The
> >beautiful K13 was a 2-33 contemporary.
>
> In the 1970's when I was being trained and doing lots of
> training, our club had two 2-33s and a Ka-7 in a boxy
> trailer the size of a mobile home. I loved the Ka-7 the few
> times I flew it, but it didn't meet the needs of the club,
> and almost never flew. The main problem was
> assembling/disassembling it. Ultimately it was sold.
>
> >One can only wonder what would have happened if Schweizer had produced a K13
> >equivalent.
>
> Knowing the pilots who ran the club back then, they would
> probably have purchased a Blanik. When we sold the Ka-7 the
> Blanik they purchased flew a lot.
>
> (My apologies for the spelling of Schweizer in previous
> posts.)
>
>
>
>
> --
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

[kirk.stant]

Andreas Maurer wrote:
> Well... if it really were "lots of people fly them and enjoy flying
> them" I wouldn't have to read threads like this on RAS once per
> month... ;)

So, Andreas, got any horror stories of your own about, shall be say,
controversial gliders? There has to be something gathering dust in the
back of the hangar!

Kirk (If you can't be flying them, might as well argue about them!)
66

[Andreas Maurer[_1_]]

On 23 Nov 2006 11:24:26 -0800, "kirk.stant" >
wrote:


>So, Andreas, got any horror stories of your own about, shall be say,
>controversial gliders? There has to be something gathering dust in the
>back of the hangar!


Yup.... we still have the last pieces of a Doppelraab hanging under
the roof of our hangar... it's been there since it rammed a tree in
1978 after about 40.000 flights.

Compared to a Doppelraab even a 2-33 is a hightech-design - the
former's stick design is unique (one stick for both student and
instructor, the instructor leaning over the studen't shoulder). Might
make an interesting flight with a female student pilot...


At the moment the oldest active glider we have (apart from our beloved
Ka-8 that is still the first solo glider) is an ASK-21 from 1986.
Unfortunately I'm not able to tell any horror stories about her...







Bye
Andreas

[[email protected]]

> Well... if it really were "lots of people fly them and enjoy flying
> them" I wouldn't have to read threads like this on RAS once per
> month... ;)

Lots of people do continue to fly 2-33s. It's still one of the few
basic trainers small clubs can buy relatively inexpensively, tie out 12
months/year, and subject to the abuse of inexperienced pilots without
fear of an occasional hard landing putting the glider into the repair
shop. It's also almost, though not quite, impossible to hurt oneself in
one, though that's a mixed blessing that requires further training in a
higher performance glider that will spin.

At the time the 2-33 was introduced, the Blanik--a much nicer glider in
almost every respect--was not type certificated in the U.S. and so
could not be used for training or giving rides. The Ka-7 and later ASK
13 had wood and fabric wings that required hangaring or labor-intensive
assembly. Ancient alternatives like the TG-2 were still around but had
their own problems. And compared to the venerable 2-22 (with its
miniscule spoilers and lack of a rear window or even a door on one
model in our club), the 2-33 was a significant improvement in every
respect.

I assume many of the Schweizers' design decisions were based on cost
and the desire to keep the price as low as possible: e.g., re-using the
2-22 fuselage and wings based on what I was once told was basically a
1-23 design, albeit with more area and with struts. Given the nearly
600 sold and the literally thousands of glider pilots who have received
training in them (including me, though most of mine was in the
even-more-utilitarian 2-22), that doesn't seem like a bad decision even
in hindsight.

That said, the only time you'll find me in a 2-33 today is when,
protesting, I'm forced into one every two years for my biennial flight
review. In a way, I can't believe I find myself defending a glider that
looked obsolete when it was introduced. :) It's noisy, the controls are
heavy, and the glide performance is abysmal, though, properly flown, it
will climb with almost anything. It's also ugly. Newer training gliders
are far more esthetically pleasing to potential glider pilots. But so
as long as there's an upgrade path available to students, what's the
big deal? I suspect many clubs use that as an incentive: "Hurry up and
solo so you can start flying the [K-21, Grob, Blanik, etc.]."

Enjoy? If you haven't flown before, flying anything is a joy. Once
you've had a taste of something better, it's tough to go back. But
that's true in any sport.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"

[kirk.stant]

> Enjoy? If you haven't flown before, flying anything is a joy. Once
> you've had a taste of something better, it's tough to go back. But
> that's true in any sport.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"

Well said, Chip.

When it's all you have, it's better than the alternative!

Cheers!

Kirk
66