How similar are the 1-34 and 2-32 to fly?

[[email protected]]

Just wondering how similar these two ships are to fly. Performance
numbers seem to be in the same neighborhood. I've been flying our
club's 1-34 and have gotten comfortable with it. What should I expect
if I were to step into the 2-32?

Thanks.

[Ralph Jones[_2_]]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:27:43 -0700, wrote:

>Just wondering how similar these two ships are to fly. Performance
>numbers seem to be in the same neighborhood. I've been flying our
>club's 1-34 and have gotten comfortable with it. What should I expect
>if I were to step into the 2-32?
>
Basically higher roll and yaw inertia. Rolling into and out of turns
takes a little longer, with higher aileron forces, and you do more
work on the rudder to keep the yaw string straight. It will gain
airspeed a shade faster with the nose down. All told, an easy
transition, much easier than your first flight in a single-place.

rj

[Papa3]

On Jul 16, 11:27 am, wrote:
> Just wondering how similar these two ships are to fly. Performance
> numbers seem to be in the same neighborhood. I've been flying our
> club's 1-34 and have gotten comfortable with it. What should I expect
> if I were to step into the 2-32?
>
> Thanks.

My quick response is "not very". The 2-32 is a truck; I compare it
to the Cessna 1-82. I personally like it, and I've even done some XC
in them. But, nobody is ever going to describe it as nimble or easy
to thermal (though it's certainly not bad). There are some quirks,
specifically the tendency to spin like a top with a very pronounced
wing drop if you get slow and a little uncordinated. Also, as with
anything that has that much mass, it tends to want to go in whatever
direction it's pointed. I'm thinking in terms of landing and rollout,
for example.

In my experience, not too many places seem to let low or moderate time
pilots fly 2-32s. They're very valuable for the ride business given
the ability to carry 2 pax plus a pilot. Most of them spend their
life flying "mile high" rides within 3 miles of the airport. Check
for solidified vomit deposits.

Erik

[[email protected]]

Your responses are interesting. The reason I posted this question is
because it was recommended (by a CFIG and former LS1f owner) that the
2-32 would be a good ship to use for transitioning to my new (to me)
LS1f. It doesn't sound like it will handle much like the LS1f. I've
spoken to many current and former LS1f drivers, and they all tell the
same story regarding it's handling. Light, responsive, excellent
control harmony, docile and a joy to fly. This doesn't sound like your
descriptions of how the 2-32 flies.

The things I'm most concerned about climbing into the LS1f is the CG
tow hook (take-offs) and energy management during the landing phase.
My own approach to transition was to get some time in a G103 or an
ASK21.

What do you guys think? 2-32, or something glass like the 103 or 21?


Thanks.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 16, 1:41?pm, wrote:
> Your responses are interesting. The reason I posted this question is
> because it was recommended (by a CFIG and former LS1f owner) that the
> 2-32 would be a good ship to use for transitioning to my new (to me)
> LS1f. It doesn't sound like it will handle much like the LS1f. I've
> spoken to many current and former LS1f drivers, and they all tell the
> same story regarding it's handling. Light, responsive, excellent
> control harmony, docile and a joy to fly. This doesn't sound like your
> descriptions of how the 2-32 flies.
>
> The things I'm most concerned about climbing into the LS1f is the CG
> tow hook (take-offs) and energy management during the landing phase.
> My own approach to transition was to get some time in a G103 or an
> ASK21.
>
> What do you guys think? 2-32, or something glass like the 103 or 21?
>
> Thanks

Either the 103 or K-21 would be a much better choice. I certainly
agree with the other posts about flying the 2-32. A flying truck is a
perfect description. My preference to transition would be the
ASK-21...much better rudder feel than the Grob.

Gary Adams
GE8

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

wrote:
> Either the 103 or K-21 would be a much better choice. I certainly
> agree with the other posts about flying the 2-32. A flying truck is a
> perfect description. My preference to transition would be the
> ASK-21...much better rudder feel than the Grob.
>
I'd agree that the ASK021 may be better if the G103 is an early model
(Twin Astir or G103A Acro II). Those will teach you a lot about speed
control/energy management but their roll rate leaves a lot to be desired
and both are under-ruddered.

However, if you can find an Acro III (G103C - the one with a Discus-like
wing) that's the one to go for. I flew one for the first time a couple
of weeks ago and liked it a lot, especially flown solo. It retains the
speed management issues of the G103A but is much more responsive in roll
and has a more powerful rudder, which both make it nicer to fly and
closer in feel to single seat glass.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Vaughn Simon]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Just wondering how similar these two ships are to fly. Performance
> numbers seem to be in the same neighborhood. I've been flying our
> club's 1-34 and have gotten comfortable with it. What should I expect
> if I were to step into the 2-32?

In certain respects, particularly energy management in the pattern, the
1-34 and the 2-32 are very similar. To me, flying a 2-32 is much like driving
around in a big 'ole 1969 Caddy. It can be a comfortable experience, you have
plenty of room in the cockpit, you have a cushy ride, you have that 1960's
ambience, but don't expect it to handle like a sports car because that ain't
what it is.

On final the 2-32 can be really fun, pull the spoilers all the way out and
you suddenly have about the same L/D as a real 1969 Caddy.

[HL Falbaum]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Your responses are interesting. The reason I posted this question is
> because it was recommended (by a CFIG and former LS1f owner) that the
> 2-32 would be a good ship to use for transitioning to my new (to me)
> LS1f. It doesn't sound like it will handle much like the LS1f. I've
> spoken to many current and former LS1f drivers, and they all tell the
> same story regarding it's handling. Light, responsive, excellent
> control harmony, docile and a joy to fly. This doesn't sound like your
> descriptions of how the 2-32 flies.
>
> The things I'm most concerned about climbing into the LS1f is the CG
> tow hook (take-offs) and energy management during the landing phase.
> My own approach to transition was to get some time in a G103 or an
> ASK21.
>
> What do you guys think? 2-32, or something glass like the 103 or 21?
>
>
> Thanks.
>

Definitely not a 2-32!

Our club has 2 ASK21's and we had an AcroII that we sold. We have a G102
Club III and a LS4(with CG hook)

Our pilots who are competent in the K21 have no problem transitioning to the
102 or the LS4, with a proper briefing. Be sure you are briefed by a CFIG
who flies a CG hook equipped glider on aerotow. The K21s have a CG hook but
it is possible to burn the rope in two by the nosewheel--we tried it a few
times and gave up!

The briefing needs to emphasize two points, and a dual flight is helpful to
practice these.

On takeoff, the glider needs to be kept on a short leash!---In other words,
scrupulous attention to correct tow position, laterally and vertically. Trim
properly and let the glider lift off on its own. The more sensitive single
place will balloon much more easily than the K21.
There is much less tendency for auto correction of malposition than with a
nose hook, but the pilot can correct position easily.

On landing---nail the glidepath solidly with small timely corrections on the
spoilers, and keep the airspeed nailed with the elevator. Then, on roundout,
transition gently to the landing attitude (about same as Vminsink) and keep
it there--(this minimizes airspeed excursion and ballooning). The stick is
much more sensitive on landing, so its use must be minimized. Adjust the
touchdown point with the spoiler.


That's about it----have fun!

Hartley Falbaum
CFIG USA

[Ralph Jones[_2_]]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:41:47 -0700, wrote:

>Your responses are interesting. The reason I posted this question is
>because it was recommended (by a CFIG and former LS1f owner) that the
>2-32 would be a good ship to use for transitioning to my new (to me)
>LS1f. It doesn't sound like it will handle much like the LS1f. I've
>spoken to many current and former LS1f drivers, and they all tell the
>same story regarding it's handling. Light, responsive, excellent
>control harmony, docile and a joy to fly. This doesn't sound like your
>descriptions of how the 2-32 flies.
>
>The things I'm most concerned about climbing into the LS1f is the CG
>tow hook (take-offs) and energy management during the landing phase.
>My own approach to transition was to get some time in a G103 or an
>ASK21.
>
>What do you guys think? 2-32, or something glass like the 103 or 21?
>
>
>Thanks.

OK, that puts a different perspective on it. As I said, the transition
to a 2-32 is easy -- too easy if glass is your destination. Better to
go to a Grob 103.

I didn't know there were any 2-32's left in rental/club service...last
I heard, a chain of tourist ride operations had bought up the whole
2-32 fleet. Lots of clubs, including mine, skinned them pretty good
on the price...;-)

rj

[Bill Daniels]

"Ralph Jones" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:41:47 -0700, wrote:
>
>>Your responses are interesting. The reason I posted this question is
>>because it was recommended (by a CFIG and former LS1f owner) that the
>>2-32 would be a good ship to use for transitioning to my new (to me)
>>LS1f. It doesn't sound like it will handle much like the LS1f. I've
>>spoken to many current and former LS1f drivers, and they all tell the
>>same story regarding it's handling. Light, responsive, excellent
>>control harmony, docile and a joy to fly. This doesn't sound like your
>>descriptions of how the 2-32 flies.
>>
>>The things I'm most concerned about climbing into the LS1f is the CG
>>tow hook (take-offs) and energy management during the landing phase.
>>My own approach to transition was to get some time in a G103 or an
>>ASK21.
>>
>>What do you guys think? 2-32, or something glass like the 103 or 21?
>>
>>
>>Thanks.
>
> OK, that puts a different perspective on it. As I said, the transition
> to a 2-32 is easy -- too easy if glass is your destination. Better to
> go to a Grob 103.
>
> I didn't know there were any 2-32's left in rental/club service...last
> I heard, a chain of tourist ride operations had bought up the whole
> 2-32 fleet. Lots of clubs, including mine, skinned them pretty good
> on the price...;-)
>
> rj

None of the Schweizers are a good transition trainers to an LS-3. In fact,
they may introduce habits that would be counterproductive. If you plan to
fly glass, avoid them.

The LS-3 is a docile, pleasant handling glider with plenty of performance.
If you can fly any of the glass 2-seaters comfortably, you will not likely
have any problems.

The CG hook and flaps are the only complications. If you have been trained
from the beginning on aero-tow, you may not notice the CG hook but be
careful to stay in position behind the tug - if you get seriously out of
position, you WILL notice the CG hook. The flaps just make the glider more
pleasant to fly. Get a good briefing from someone who had flown the glider
and go have fun.

Bill Daniels

[Papa3]

On Jul 16, 5:32 pm, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> > Just wondering how similar these two ships are to fly. Performance
> > numbers seem to be in the same neighborhood. I've been flying our
> > club's 1-34 and have gotten comfortable with it. What should I expect
> > if I were to step into the 2-32?
>
> In certain respects, particularly energy management in the pattern, the
> 1-34 and the 2-32 are very similar. To me, flying a 2-32 is much like driving
> around in a big 'ole 1969 Caddy. It can be a comfortable experience, you have
> plenty of room in the cockpit, you have a cushy ride, you have that 1960's
> ambience, but don't expect it to handle like a sports car because that ain't
> what it is.
>
> On final the 2-32 can be really fun, pull the spoilers all the way out and
> you suddenly have about the same L/D as a real 1969 Caddy.

Growing up in the 'burbs in the 70's, we had a name for something like
a 1969 Caddy. The term was "road sofa." In some respects, that's
how I view the 2-32. I especially love the trim wheel; if there were
a throttle I'd swear I was in a light twin :-)

Someone else mentioned the divebrakes. That's also a real hoot. I
watched the local ride pilot turn short final at about 800 feet this
past Sunday into a 20kt headwind. Popped out the boards and pushed
the nose over to about 80kts indicated. L/D approximates a set of
car keys. Down and stopped on the runway in a couple hundred
feet.

Can't really do that in an LS1.

P3

[BT]

> Our pilots who are competent in the K21 have no problem transitioning to
> the 102 or the LS4, with a proper briefing. Be sure you are briefed by a
> CFIG who flies a CG hook equipped glider on aerotow. The K21s have a CG
> hook but it is possible to burn the rope in two by the nosewheel--we tried
> it a few times and gave up!
>

Having flown the 1-34, SGS 2-32, Grob 103 and LS4. I would not think the
2-32 to be a good transition trainer. If your option is the K-21.. then
yes.. a far better choice.

We use our club G103 to transition our pilots to our LS4. The pilots must be
Grob 103 PIC qualified with consistent landings before transition to single
seat glass. We put the single seat glass candidate in the back seat and use
the CG hook. We carefully brief the tendency to "catch the rope twix tire
and pavement" if the nose is allowed to drop once picked up. We have never
burned a rope, but that does not mean we won't.

Slack line recoveries really feel different with the CG hook, and the point
is well made to get the nose pointed at tow before the rope comes taught.
Also pilots are not used to seeing the rope off to the side.. so we go left
and right "across the top of the box" to let them see that.. also dropping
down one side of the "box" to really see the rope impresses the "pay
attention and stay put on tow".

2-33s, 2-32s, 1-34s and even the Grob 103 require the nose to be picked up
early in the take off, counter productive for "tail wheel glass" single
seaters.. the hardest part is getting the new LS pilot to "relax" back
pressure on take off to allow the tail to rise and let the LS "fly off"..
holding the stick back causes the LS to JUMP into the air at too slow a
speed, and then the pilot is PIO to keep from over ballooning while waiting
for the tow to lift off.

BT
CFIG and TOW

[Frank Whiteley]

On Jul 16, 6:13 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> "Ralph Jones" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:41:47 -0700, wrote:
>
> >>Your responses are interesting. The reason I posted this question is
> >>because it was recommended (by a CFIG and former LS1f owner) that the
> >>2-32 would be a good ship to use for transitioning to my new (to me)
> >>LS1f. It doesn't sound like it will handle much like the LS1f. I've
> >>spoken to many current and former LS1f drivers, and they all tell the
> >>same story regarding it's handling. Light, responsive, excellent
> >>control harmony, docile and a joy to fly. This doesn't sound like your
> >>descriptions of how the 2-32 flies.
>
> >>The things I'm most concerned about climbing into the LS1f is the CG
> >>tow hook (take-offs) and energy management during the landing phase.
> >>My own approach to transition was to get some time in a G103 or an
> >>ASK21.
>
> >>What do you guys think? 2-32, or something glass like the 103 or 21?
>
> >>Thanks.
>
> > OK, that puts a different perspective on it. As I said, the transition
> > to a 2-32 is easy -- too easy if glass is your destination. Better to
> > go to a Grob 103.
>
> > I didn't know there were any 2-32's left in rental/club service...last
> > I heard, a chain of tourist ride operations had bought up the whole
> > 2-32 fleet. Lots of clubs, including mine, skinned them pretty good
> > on the price...;-)
>
> > rj
>
> None of the Schweizers are a good transition trainers to an LS-3. In fact,
> they may introduce habits that would be counterproductive. If you plan to
> fly glass, avoid them.
>
> The LS-3 is a docile, pleasant handling glider with plenty of performance.
> If you can fly any of the glass 2-seaters comfortably, you will not likely
> have any problems.
>
> The CG hook and flaps are the only complications. If you have been trained
> from the beginning on aero-tow, you may not notice the CG hook but be
> careful to stay in position behind the tug - if you get seriously out of
> position, you WILL notice the CG hook. The flaps just make the glider more
> pleasant to fly. Get a good briefing from someone who had flown the glider
> and go have fun.
>
> Bill Daniels

A pilot here in Colorado recently bought an LS-3 that had been based
in Moriarty. When I brought him the tow rope, I found it had been
fitted with an Applebay Zuni 'chin' hook. Nice addition to a glider
that will be frequently flown from sites that frequently get some
squirrelly crosswinds.

Frank Whiteley

[Bruce]

wrote:
> On Jul 16, 1:41?pm, wrote:
>> Your responses are interesting. The reason I posted this question is
>> because it was recommended (by a CFIG and former LS1f owner) that the
>> 2-32 would be a good ship to use for transitioning to my new (to me)
>> LS1f. It doesn't sound like it will handle much like the LS1f. I've
>> spoken to many current and former LS1f drivers, and they all tell the
>> same story regarding it's handling. Light, responsive, excellent
>> control harmony, docile and a joy to fly. This doesn't sound like your
>> descriptions of how the 2-32 flies.
>>
>> The things I'm most concerned about climbing into the LS1f is the CG
>> tow hook (take-offs) and energy management during the landing phase.
>> My own approach to transition was to get some time in a G103 or an
>> ASK21.
>>
>> What do you guys think? 2-32, or something glass like the 103 or 21?
>>
>> Thanks
>
> Either the 103 or K-21 would be a much better choice. I certainly
> agree with the other posts about flying the 2-32. A flying truck is a
> perfect description. My preference to transition would be the
> ASK-21...much better rudder feel than the Grob.
>
> Gary Adams
> GE8
>
Second that - the K21 is better harmonised than earlier G103s. I have not flown
the 103-III which is apparently much better.

I transitioned to aerotow on Std Cirrus using a G103. In my experience it is an
effective approach - just use the CG hook on the Grob/K21.

[bagmaker]

(snip)A pilot here in Colorado recently bought an LS-3 that had been based
in Moriarty. When I brought him the tow rope, I found it had been
fitted with an Applebay Zuni 'chin' hook. Nice addition to a glider
that will be frequently flown from sites that frequently get some
squirrelly crosswinds.

Frank Whiteley (snip)

What is a chin hook?

Thanks, Bagger

[[email protected]]

Thanks to all for your input. I am now in the process of scheduling
time in an ASK21. If that doesn't work out, then it's on to a G103 as
a "plan b".

Dave

[Frank Whiteley]

On Jul 17, 3:39 am, bagmaker >
wrote:
> (snip)A pilot here in Colorado recently bought an LS-3 that had been
> based
> in Moriarty. When I brought him the tow rope, I found it had been
> fitted with an Applebay Zuni 'chin' hook. Nice addition to a glider
> that will be frequently flown from sites that frequently get some
> squirrelly crosswinds.
>
> Frank Whiteley (snip)
>
> What is a chin hook?
>
> Thanks, Bagger
>
> --
> bagmaker

Just a term to differentiate the position from a true nose hook, like
on a Grob, Kestrel, and many others. Usually fitted about 18-36
inches back under the nose, depending on the glider. On my LAK-12,
the forward hook is just ahead of the panel pedestal, more a chin than
nose position. On the LS-3 in question, the Applebay hook was about
24" back from the nose. Last time I checked they were much less
expensive than a TOST refit and some number of western US based
gliders have them. Plus they fit flush after release. I've been told
the Applebay hook is very similar to the Schreder hook on most of the
HP series.

Frank Whiteley

[[email protected]]

Hi all. Just thought I'd post an update. I went to another operation
to fly their G103 in an effort to help me transition to my LS1f. I was
fortunate enough to fly with Judy Ruprecht. She was very helpful with
some ground instruction and descriptions of what I should expect when
in the air. I really enjoyed flying with her. I think this will help
make my upcoming check-ride much less nerve-racking now that I know
her a little. Anyway, it turns out the G103 is a rather benign and
forgiving ship. After a few minutes, I was pretty comfortable with it.
We did some slow-speed/stall work in straight and turning flight and
the stall characteristics are pretty docile. Did a little soaring with
it too, and without audio. All I had was the mechanical vario, and I
was able to scratch back up to release altitude with it. I've never
flown without audio before. Flying at a new location for the first
time was the only real challenge, but that wasn't all that bad. About
the only thing that really stands out in my mind from yesterday is the
feel of more mass on landing. I had no problem on approach and landing
other than not holding off quite enough to get the two-point touch. I
pretty much greased the landing, but it was on the main wheel. Judy
made a couple of pattern adjustment suggestions mostly due to my
unfamiliarity with the field. The one bit of handling advice I got was
to watch my speed in the pattern. I slowed just a bit on base while
looking outside at my angles. She was more concerned about flaring too
slow and landing hard and made a comment about not slowing down any
further. But I easily picked up the pace a bit before we were finished
with base and the rest of the landing went well. Oh yeah, there's a
damned tree just to the right of the approach end of runway 7 that
seems really close. My instinct was to stay away from it, but that
would have had me aligned with runway lights under the left wing tip
(we were landing on 7R, grass). So after a quick suggestion from Judy,
I moved over towards the tree anyway rather than waiting until I got
by it. As I said, I had more problems with the strange field than I
did with the ship. Anyhow, the 103 really is an easy ship to fly. I
had myself psyched about nothing.

Dave