PW-6U by Jezow being delivered [Archive]

Dan G

August 14th 07, 06:42 PM

On Aug 14, 6:08 pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
> Charles Yeates wrote:
> >http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/yeatesc/world.html
>
> Gee, only about US $90K delivered. I'm not complaining, it's probably a
> bargain compared to a new K-21 or DG-505. I just find it amusing that
> some wonder why a lot a clubs stick with their 2-33s...
>
> Marc

A DG1000 is around $170,000, or $200,000 for one with a sustainer.
They're amazing gliders though. Can be used for basic training, full
aerobatics, or for beating Duo Discuses on cross-countries while the
front pilot has somewhere to put his stuff.

These PW6s look quite good value and make far more sense than the PW5
ever did. They're much cheaper than anything else in their class and
they make a good impression - a good, strong, modern ship. It might
take 10 years for a club to pay for one, but think of the benefits -
impresses visitors (=more members), can be used for XC training (=more
membership progression), generally a damn sight nicer to fly than a
tired old glider...

Dan

Marc Ramsey

August 14th 07, 07:17 PM

Dan G wrote:
> A DG1000 is around $170,000, or $200,000 for one with a sustainer.
> They're amazing gliders though. Can be used for basic training, full
> aerobatics, or for beating Duo Discuses on cross-countries while the
> front pilot has somewhere to put his stuff.

Which is roughly 10 to 15 times the cost of the typical club glider here
in the US. There are tradeoffs, many clubs have a lot of members who
rarely fly but are willing to pay the dues. If a club significantly
raises the dues to cover a new glider, they usually lose members in the
short term. If a club sells off a number of tired old gliders to raise
capital for a new one, they also run the risk of losing members due to
fewer available gliders to fly. Maybe the membership will rise to
higher levels later due to nice gliders, maybe it won't.

> These PW6s look quite good value and make far more sense than the PW5
> ever did. They're much cheaper than anything else in their class and
> they make a good impression - a good, strong, modern ship. It might
> take 10 years for a club to pay for one, but think of the benefits -
> impresses visitors (=more members), can be used for XC training (=more
> membership progression), generally a damn sight nicer to fly than a
> tired old glider...

Bank loans to clubs are rarely a viable option in the US, so in many
cases pulling this off is dependent on having members with deep pockets
willing to make long term low interest loans. I've seen this work in a
few cases, I've also seen cases where the "nice" glider ends up being an
expensive white elephant that drives members out of the club. Years ago
I left a club and formed a syndicate with other departing members to buy
a Duo, as we couldn't make the finances work inside the club.

Bay Area Soaring Associates here in the SF Bay area has managed to get
on DG-1000 in their fleet, and has a second one on order. Any members
care to comment on how you all managed to handle the finances?

Marc

Bill Daniels

August 14th 07, 07:22 PM

"Charles Yeates" > wrote in message
...
>
> http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/yeatesc/world.html
>
The PW-6U is a great club glider. It's solid and easy to fly. I wish Jesow
and Charles Yeats a lot of success with it.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels

August 14th 07, 07:55 PM

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
...
> Charles Yeates wrote:
>> http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/yeatesc/world.html
>
> Gee, only about US $90K delivered. I'm not complaining, it's probably a
> bargain compared to a new K-21 or DG-505. I just find it amusing that
> some wonder why a lot a clubs stick with their 2-33s...
>
> Marc

2-33's are cheap. Shooting yourself in the foot is also cheap. 2-33's are
cheap for a very good reason - they're terrible gliders.

2-33's have done untold damage to American soaring. Since 2-33's were
introduced as many as a hundred thousand potential glider pilots have walked
away because they were introduced to the sport with a ride in a 2-33. In
the long run, THAT was expensive.

When 2-33's were introduced in the late 1960's they cost $25,000. In todays
Dollars, that's $145,000. by comparison, the PW-6U is a screaming bargan.

Bill Daniels

J a c k

August 14th 07, 08:05 PM

Bill Daniels wrote:

> When 2-33's were introduced in the late 1960's they cost $25,000. In todays
> Dollars, that's $145,000. by comparison, the PW-6U is a screaming bargain.

That sounds high. I think I could have bought a new Cessna 180 during
the same period for that price. But if the 2-33 sold for $12,500 in
those days the PW-6U would still be a bargain.

Our club is about to acquire its second ASK-21. That's a good choice,
but they are few and far between, and they aren't new at a price a
club can afford.

Jack

Paul Hanson

August 14th 07, 08:24 PM

At 17:24 14 August 2007, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>Charles Yeates wrote:
>> http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/yeatesc/world.html
>
>Gee, only about US $90K delivered. I'm not complaining,
>it's probably a
>bargain compared to a new K-21 or DG-505. I just find
>it amusing that
>some wonder why a lot a clubs stick with their 2-33s...
>
>Marc
>

At $90,000 it seems to make more sense to go for the
new Perkoz, since it's going into production---+9 to
-6 G's, 40/1 L/D, 17m/20m tips. Acro, X/C, training...Good
pilot reports on characteristics. SZD had 20 years
to work out the bugs in the Poochie, and the SZD 54
'seems' like a more promising ship for the price. I
guess time will tell. If I had the money, I would wait
and see myself.

Paul Hanson
"Do the usual, unusually well"--Len Niemi

Marc Ramsey

August 14th 07, 09:25 PM

Bill Daniels wrote:
> 2-33's are cheap. Shooting yourself in the foot is also cheap. 2-33's are
> cheap for a very good reason - they're terrible gliders.

I've flown some terrible gliders, 2-33s aren't terrible. They're cheap
because they're old and there are still a lot of them around, and fewer
people flying.

> 2-33's have done untold damage to American soaring. Since 2-33's were
> introduced as many as a hundred thousand potential glider pilots have walked
> away because they were introduced to the sport with a ride in a 2-33. In
> the long run, THAT was expensive.

Since the 2-33 was introduced a lot of people, like myself, learned to
fly in them, and otherwise might not have had the opportunity. I
started in the late 60 and early 70s, and from my perspective, without
the 2-33 there would be no American soaring today. I got to fly the
occasional K7 and K13 back then, and most ended up broken, with no local
knowledge on how to fix them. The 2-33 was far more robust, and could
be repaired by just about any shade tree A&P back then (and now).

> When 2-33's were introduced in the late 1960's they cost $25,000. In todays
> Dollars, that's $145,000. by comparison, the PW-6U is a screaming bargan.

Clubs don't have $145,000 2-33s today, they have $10,000 2-33s. Yes,
there are a few clubs that can afford upwards of $90,000 to get a shiny
new trainer, and I would encourage them to do so (after they get a shiny
new winch, of course), but most can't. Just look at what is being asked
for ratty old K21s, if you can find one. 2-33s aren't killing American
soaring, the unbalanced US economy and lack of manufacturing innovation
in the glider industry is killing it...

Marc

Jeremy Zawodny

August 14th 07, 11:59 PM

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Bay Area Soaring Associates here in the SF Bay area has managed to get
> on DG-1000 in their fleet, and has a second one on order. Any members
> care to comment on how you all managed to handle the finances?

We financed the first DG-1000 by selling off a Grob 103, using some of
our "new glider fund" savings, and largely by borrowing money from members.

We managed to pay the loans off faster than expected (having the ship
helped us get some members, I'm sure), so we have the second one on
order. Sadly, the Euro vs. Dollar makes the second one quite a bit more
expensive than the first, which we bought from Charlie Hayes.

Someday we need to replace our other Grob 103. Ideally, we'd get an
ASK-21, but they're REALLY hard to find used and nearly the same cost as
a DG-505 when bought new.

It'll be interesting to see where we end up...

Jeremy (a BASA member)

bagmaker

August 15th 07, 12:07 AM

I must disagree, respectably, with your opinion Mark.

You wont find a 2-33 in a German club, you will find new shiny ships and LOTS of new pilots. Do you get that in the US? Now, are memberships rising or falling in the US? And in Germany? Ahhhhh, see a link?

I used to say "how can we afford that?" as well, until some wit pointed out that we couldnt afford NOT to go with expensive gliders.
Build it and they will come.
Mr Daniels is right on the money, youngsters now have a new phone every 2 years, a new car every 3 years, a mortgage no-one can really afford, 3 ipods, a PDA, $250 sunglasses and a wardrobe of jeans the cost of which would support a small african country.

Do you honestly think they will be enticed into gliding if offered an antique 2-33?

New Pooch, PW-6, ASK or whichever, they will all be better than a tin or fabric floater for the bling factor alone.

Bagger

Greg Arnold

August 15th 07, 12:11 AM

When buying new, what lead you to get a second DG-1000 rather than
diversifying by getting a Duo Discus?

Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> Marc Ramsey wrote:
>> Bay Area Soaring Associates here in the SF Bay area has managed to get
>> on DG-1000 in their fleet, and has a second one on order. Any members
>> care to comment on how you all managed to handle the finances?
>
> We financed the first DG-1000 by selling off a Grob 103, using some of
> our "new glider fund" savings, and largely by borrowing money from members.
>
> We managed to pay the loans off faster than expected (having the ship
> helped us get some members, I'm sure), so we have the second one on
> order. Sadly, the Euro vs. Dollar makes the second one quite a bit more
> expensive than the first, which we bought from Charlie Hayes.
>
> Someday we need to replace our other Grob 103. Ideally, we'd get an
> ASK-21, but they're REALLY hard to find used and nearly the same cost as
> a DG-505 when bought new.
>
> It'll be interesting to see where we end up...
>
> Jeremy (a BASA member)

Eric Greenwell

August 15th 07, 05:48 AM

bagmaker wrote:
> I must disagree, respectably, with your opinion Mark.
>
> You wont find a 2-33 in a German club, you will find new shiny ships
> and LOTS of new pilots. Do you get that in the US? Now, are memberships
> rising or falling in the US? And in Germany? Ahhhhh, see a link?

Are memberships really rising in Germany? Do you have numbers? If they
are, that would be different from the trend worldwide.

Do you suppose the use of low-cost winch launches might explain a lot of
the difference, along with the much higher cost of powered flight, and
*very* easy access to glider operations because the country is so compact?

So, at the moment, I don't see the link, because these other differences
seem important. In our club, it wasn't the lack of "bling" (we had an
old Blanik) that kept our membership down, it was the lack of
instructors and towpilots. If we had enough of those, we could have
easily doubled our membership and been able to afford the fiberglass two
seater.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Dan G

August 15th 07, 09:29 AM

On Aug 15, 5:48 am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Are memberships really rising in Germany? Do you have numbers? If they
> are, that would be different from the trend worldwide.

I do have numbers, thanks to John Roake, and membership in Germany is
actually collapsing faster than anywhere in the world - (32,229
members in 2006 vs 37,624 in 1996, continuous decline). I have no idea
why (does anyone else know?).

Low-cost winching obviously makes gliding much more affordable. I'm
still not aero-tow solo as there simply isn't any point. I get to 75%
the height of an standard aerotow on the winch and never fail to "get
away" - so why pay five times as much to be slowly dragged into the
sky by an expensive and noisy power plane (which I'm sure the airfield
neighbours love)? But if you don't have a winch, it's not just a case
of getting one and using it - very thorough flight training is needed
to use it safely, and I'm not sure how a club that lacks that
expertise could just go and get it.

Eric also mentions a lack of instructors. That's a critical problem in
many clubs, as active instructor numbers seems to be dropping faster
than membership overall. One of the many points a club may need to put
in order before it considers a marketing blitz - what are _you_ doing
to train and retain new instructors?

Quickly RE DG1000 vs Duo - a club near me has also bought a second
DG1000 rather than a Duo too. Why? Because the DG1000 is a far better
ship. Unlike the Duo it is suitable for pre-solo training to
comfortably out-running Duos on XC. It's a stronger glider with a far
better design (people may laugh at the enormous landing gear but wait
until a pupil gives you a heavy landing, or the glider lands out in
crop. Then you'll know why DG designed it). I wouldn't bother
replacing a G103 though. If it's tatty get it done up for a tiny
fraction of the cost of a new aircraft. It's still a 1:33 glider and
tough as nails.

I personally believe modern GRP trainers may well be worth it.
Membership costs seem to be surprisingly inelastic, and I suspect many
potential members would rather payer somewhat higher fees in return
for *far* better gliders. Cheap isn't always best. That said I think
the K13 is the perfect trainer and if I ran a club with a fleet of
those, I'd just repaint them and keep them, then add a K21 or G103 for
XC training (consider that a mid-performance glider may be preferable
for early XC training, as it's unlikely that your new early XC pilots
will have access to gliders with any better performance!).

Dan

Dan G

August 15th 07, 09:44 AM

On Aug 15, 9:29 am, Dan G > wrote:
> That said I think
> the K13 is the perfect trainer and if I ran a club with a fleet of
> those, I'd just repaint them and keep them, then add a K21 or G103 for
> XC training

....and if you do add an expensive high-performance glider, set your
per-minute flying fees to be identical for all gliders - from your Duo
or DG to you 13s or 33s. Why? Because I've just remembered that my own
club, which happens to have exactly the fleet I've outlined above
(three K13s and a K21), also has a brand new Duo X on long-term loan,
which I'd forgotten about. AFAIK it's flown once(!!!) this year, and
that was only by a visiting pilot - the per-minute charge is more than
double than the other four two-place gliders. No-one I've spoken to
has the slightest interest in flying it at that cost so it just sits
there.

The club I mentioned that has just bought a second DG1000 charges the
same fee for their 13s, 21s and the two 1000s. Guess what? The DG1000s
are a regular sight in the skies all around the local area and beyond,
as they are used daily. In fact they're often first out of the hangar,
make a tremendous impression on trial flight folks (if you've ever
flown in the front seat of a DG, you'll know why - the vast view is
stunning!) and more often than not they go XC, exactly what they were
designed for. Bizarrely, that club is now actually investigating
changing the pricing structure, even though they originally introduced
the flat rate for exactly the reasons I've given, and are not
struggling to pay the loans on the new gliders. I hope they see sense!

Dan

[email protected]

August 15th 07, 08:39 PM

On Aug 14, 2:55 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Charles Yeates wrote:
> >>http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/yeatesc/world.html
>
> > Gee, only about US $90K delivered. I'm not complaining, it's probably a
> > bargain compared to a new K-21 or DG-505. I just find it amusing that
> > some wonder why a lot a clubs stick with their 2-33s...
>
> > Marc
>
> 2-33's are cheap. Shooting yourself in the foot is also cheap. 2-33's are
> cheap for a very good reason - they're terrible gliders.
>
> 2-33's have done untold damage to American soaring. Since 2-33's were
> introduced as many as a hundred thousand potential glider pilots have walked
> away because they were introduced to the sport with a ride in a 2-33. In
> the long run, THAT was expensive.
>
> When 2-33's were introduced in the late 1960's they cost $25,000. In todays
> Dollars, that's $145,000. by comparison, the PW-6U is a screaming bargan.
>
> Bill Daniels

Bill obviously lives in a different world of gliding than we do in my
club.
Our gliders have to live outside because we don't have a hanger.
Our 2-33's are busy all day most days while the '21 flies much less.
Almost 1/4 of our membership are juniors who could never afford to fly
if we had to support $100,000 2 seaters.
People love to ride in our 2-33's. One out of 4 rides turns into an
introductory training package. Doen't sound like we are scaring them
off.
The missing point is that it is not what you fly- it is that you fly.
There is room in our sport for many approaches without putting down
the other guy.
A little research would show the 2-33 was introduced in about 1972 and
likely is only second in our active fleet to 1-26's.
I think they have served us well.
UH

Ian

August 15th 07, 09:12 PM

On 15 Aug, 09:29, Dan G > wrote:

> I personally believe modern GRP trainers may well be worth it.

I used to fly at Border GC in Northumberland. When I started there,
twelve years ago, they had two Bocians, a Pirat and 75 members. Now
they have a K21, an Alliance, a Grob Acro, a Club Astir, a Pirat ...
and 180+ members.

However, I think it would be too simplistic to say that the gliders
have brought the members. It's just as true that the members have paid
for the gliders ... moving from a 37 acre airfield to a 200 acre one
has probably helped too!

Now I fly from a club with a Ka-2, various private single seaters ...
and 8 members.

Ian

Andreas Maurer[_1_]

August 15th 07, 09:59 PM

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:48:50 GMT, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:

>
>Are memberships really rising in Germany? Do you have numbers? If they
>are, that would be different from the trend worldwide.

They are not (although there are exceptions - membership in my club is
rising steadily and has increased 30% from 1986 when I started
gliding) - but the average age of a German glider pilot is *young* -
you see many, many young, motivated pilots on German (or, rather,
European) airfields who can only affored gliding due to the very low
costs compared to the US.

>Do you suppose the use of low-cost winch launches might explain a lot of
>the difference, along with the much higher cost of powered flight, and
>*very* easy access to glider operations because the country is so compact?

It's definitely the winch launch.

Bye
Andreas

Bill Daniels

August 15th 07, 10:25 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Aug 14, 2:55 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > Charles Yeates wrote:
>> >>http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/yeatesc/world.html
>>
>> > Gee, only about US $90K delivered. I'm not complaining, it's probably
>> > a
>> > bargain compared to a new K-21 or DG-505. I just find it amusing that
>> > some wonder why a lot a clubs stick with their 2-33s...
>>
>> > Marc
>>
>> 2-33's are cheap. Shooting yourself in the foot is also cheap. 2-33's
>> are
>> cheap for a very good reason - they're terrible gliders.
>>
>> 2-33's have done untold damage to American soaring. Since 2-33's were
>> introduced as many as a hundred thousand potential glider pilots have
>> walked
>> away because they were introduced to the sport with a ride in a 2-33. In
>> the long run, THAT was expensive.
>>
>> When 2-33's were introduced in the late 1960's they cost $25,000. In
>> todays
>> Dollars, that's $145,000. by comparison, the PW-6U is a screaming
>> bargan.
>>
>> Bill Daniels
>
>
> Bill obviously lives in a different world of gliding than we do in my
> club.
> Our gliders have to live outside because we don't have a hanger.
> Our 2-33's are busy all day most days while the '21 flies much less.
> Almost 1/4 of our membership are juniors who could never afford to fly
> if we had to support $100,000 2 seaters.
> People love to ride in our 2-33's. One out of 4 rides turns into an
> introductory training package. Doen't sound like we are scaring them
> off.
> The missing point is that it is not what you fly- it is that you fly.
> There is room in our sport for many approaches without putting down
> the other guy.
> A little research would show the 2-33 was introduced in about 1972 and
> likely is only second in our active fleet to 1-26's.
> I think they have served us well.
> UH

I think it's you who's living in the past. I also don't think you are
supporting youth. I think you have conned a bunch of people into
suppoprting a tow plane. The 2-33 excells at that - it falls out of the sky
so it needs a lot of tows. BTW, can't you use your real name?

BTW, the first customer 2-33 I saw was in use in 1967 in Southern
California. My logbook shows I instructed in them in 1970 so your 1972 date
is bogus.

Bill Daniels

01-- Zero One

August 15th 07, 10:42 PM

"Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
:

>
> I think it's you who's living in the past. I also don't think you are
> supporting youth. I think you have conned a bunch of people into
> suppoprting a tow plane. The 2-33 excells at that - it falls out of the sky
> so it needs a lot of tows. BTW, can't you use your real name?
>
<snip>

> Bill Daniels

Oh, my, Mr. Daniels! Are you ever in for a walloping! Before this is
over, I bet you will wish you had just slapped your grandmother instead
of posting this!

I am going to just sit back and watch!!!!

Larry

01 "zero one"

Steve Davis

August 15th 07, 11:26 PM

>I do have numbers, thanks to John Roake, and membership
>in Germany
>is actually collapsing faster than anywhere in the
>world - (32,229
>members in 2006 vs 37,624 in 1996, continuous decline).
>I have no
>idea why (does anyone else know?).

Much of that decline could be explained by demographics.
The German
population is getting older because of a very low birth
rate and many of
their well educated youth are leaving for jobs in lower
tax rate countries.

I Googled German demographics and found this article
from 2006. This
is a problem throughout Europe. Somewhere around 56%
of the
specialist doctors in England are from Asia and the
Middle East because
most of the British trained doctors live and work in
the US.

'The exodus of Germans being lured away from home is
greater today
than at any time since statisticians began collecting
figures about
population movements in the 1950s.

Last year, for the first time since 1968, more people
left Germany than
arrived, according to Destatis, the federal statistical
office. It estimates
that 144,815 Germans left the country last year because
of high
unemployment, better opportunities or, in some cases,
tax.''

German demographers were shocked in 1987 when the latest
census put
the population at 82.4m – 1.3m lower than projected.
But a more
unpleasant surprise could be in store for Germans as
work for the next
census gets under way this week. The previous emigration
record of
1956 was breached in 1994 and, after several years
of decline, the
outflow began rising again in 2001, and continued to
rise up to 2004,
although 2005’s figure of 144,815 was slightly down
on the year before.

“There has definitely been an increase [in German emigration]
over the
past two to three years,” said Christina Busch at the
Raphael-Werke, an
organisation that counsels would-be emigrants. “What
worries me is that
99.9 per cent of those I see have qualifications. Many
have children.
Some even have good jobs. And most want a clean break
– they do not
intend to come back.”

Architects, engineers, lorry drivers, scientists and
social workers are
leaving in droves, according to figures. The outflow
of doctors towards
Scandinavia is such that the medical faculty of Erlangen
University
recently started offering Swedish courses to its students.'

'For former East Germany, the outlook is particularly
grim. Another IAB
study estimates the region’s population will drop from
15m to 9m by
2050.'

Bob Kuykendall

August 15th 07, 11:57 PM

Earlier, Hank Nixon wrote:

> A little research would show the 2-33 was introduced in about 1972...

Heh, and a little more research would show that the 2-33 actually
dates to five years earlier, in 1967.

The original 2-33 was certificated on 10 Feb 1967, followed by the
2-33A on 7 March 1968 and the kit version 2-33AK on 19 April 1973.
When I worked at Sky Sailing in the early 1980s our 2-33 fleet had
several pre-A models in it, so there was definitely a substantial
number built prior to the Feb 1968 A-model introduction.

Here's the TCDS in .pdf from faa.gov:

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/84b126f9575b545d85256721004ee3d9/$FILE/G2ea.PDF

(Would you like TLAs with that? ;)

Personally, I like the 2-33 as a basic trainer because its simple and
rugged, with lots and lots of crash-protection iron. Bill has a point
that it is a distinctly unsexy aircraft. However, in my experience
rugged unsexy trainers outperform broken trainers on most days of the
week.

Thanks, Bob K.

Eric Greenwell

August 16th 07, 12:10 AM

Bill Daniels wrote:
>
> BTW, the first customer 2-33 I saw was in use in 1967 in Southern
> California. My logbook shows I instructed in them in 1970 so your 1972 date
> is bogus.

A lot of us think UH is his real name! But if you don't know him real
well, he also answers to the more formal "Uncle Hank".

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Dan G

August 16th 07, 12:21 AM

On Aug 15, 11:57 pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> Personally, I like the 2-33 as a basic trainer because its simple and
> rugged, with lots and lots of crash-protection iron. Bill has a point
> that it is a distinctly unsexy aircraft. However, in my experience
> rugged unsexy trainers outperform broken trainers on most days of the
> week.

TBH, if you're breaking gliders, you're doing something wrong, and
fixing that should be a higher priority than what kind of gliders to
use :-).

I'd disagree that older gliders are tougher than GRP. The K21 is
immensely strong with a high G rating - much higher than the K13, for
example - and the DG1000 is stronger still (I don't know about the
PW6U though). Both the DG and the K21 have cockpits designed for crash
protection with areas designed to maintain their shape in a crash
(double-wall fuselage, strong canopy frames, roll-over bar) and other
parts that deform to absorb energy - in an older steel-framed glider,
you become the energy absorbing part. That's not good.

Modern GRP gliders tend to have bigger main wheels with good shock
mounting and also nose wheels, which absorb far more energy in a heavy
landing than a nose skid does. That can save your life and certainly
your ability to walk.

On the other hand, repairs to GRP generally cost more than fixing
wood, metal and fabric. But as I said at the top, if you're having to
fix broken gliders, you're doing something wrong.

Dan

bagmaker

August 16th 07, 01:41 AM

[QUOTE=Dan G;545786]On Aug 15, 5:48 am, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Are memberships really rising in Germany? Do you have numbers? If they
are, that would be different from the trend worldwide.

I do have numbers, thanks to John Roake, and membership in Germany is
actually collapsing faster than anywhere in the world - (32,229
members in 2006 vs 37,624 in 1996, continuous decline). I have no idea
why (does anyone else know?).

Thankyou, Dan, I stand corrected.

No, I dont know either, its a disaster.

I fear the Germans also have a high rate of shiny vs. old tin/fabric gliders in their clubs, being the country of origin of most gliders built, thus rendering many of my other rants completely bunk also.

But hey, cant deny the enthusiasm!

Bagger

alex8735

August 16th 07, 10:21 AM

>The missing point is that it is not what you fly- it is that you fly.

I cannot really image that new shiny glas ships make all that
difference. When I took up gliding with 15 years of age I was trained
on the K13 and soon flew Ka8 and Ka6. I always thought these were
beautiful gliders and a lot of fun to fly.

In my opinion the main problem of declining numbers of glider pilots
in germany is that society has changed over the past 25 years. People
used to have comfortable jobs with a lot of spare time. They could
afford to support a family and still put a lot of time into gliding
clubs. Now jobs are more demanding and time consuming. People tend to
have more money but less time to spend it. This seriously affects the
structure of many german gliding clubs which depend on the time and
commitment of their members to keep operating at low costs. Nowadays
many people can more easily afford to get a brand new high performance
self launcher than putting a lot of time into the club. In the long
run I think we are going from a commitment supported structure to a
cash and carry service oriented structure. I find this sad because all
those 14-year-olds of the future won't be able to afford gliding
anymore.

Many german clubs have been building and improving their fleet for 50
years. By good maintenance and care, these fleets hardly loose value
and upgrading to the next better model isn't such a big step to take.
I think that is why you find so many nice fleets over here. I don't
really see how you want to go from 2-33 to DG1000 in just one step.

One of the main reasons many german clubs are trading their K13s for
fiberglass trainers is not that they are more attractive to new
members but because of their easier maintainance. Fibreglass ships
usually just need a bit of polishing while a wooden glider needs a
major overhaul every 10 - 15years. With decreasing numbers of members
this is becoming increasingly difficult to accomplish. Metal gliders
are not as popular because there is far less knowledge of how to
maintain and repair them;-)

[email protected]

August 16th 07, 01:45 PM

On Aug 15, 5:25 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 14, 2:55 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> >> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > Charles Yeates wrote:
> >> >>http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/yeatesc/world.html
>
> >> > Gee, only about US $90K delivered. I'm not complaining, it's probably
> >> > a
> >> > bargain compared to a new K-21 or DG-505. I just find it amusing that
> >> > some wonder why a lot a clubs stick with their 2-33s...
>
> >> > Marc
>
> >> 2-33's are cheap. Shooting yourself in the foot is also cheap. 2-33's
> >> are
> >> cheap for a very good reason - they're terrible gliders.
>
> >> 2-33's have done untold damage to American soaring. Since 2-33's were
> >> introduced as many as a hundred thousand potential glider pilots have
> >> walked
> >> away because they were introduced to the sport with a ride in a 2-33. In
> >> the long run, THAT was expensive.
>
> >> When 2-33's were introduced in the late 1960's they cost $25,000. In
> >> todays
> >> Dollars, that's $145,000. by comparison, the PW-6U is a screaming
> >> bargan.
>
> >> Bill Daniels
>
> > Bill obviously lives in a different world of gliding than we do in my
> > club.
> > Our gliders have to live outside because we don't have a hanger.
> > Our 2-33's are busy all day most days while the '21 flies much less.
> > Almost 1/4 of our membership are juniors who could never afford to fly
> > if we had to support $100,000 2 seaters.
> > People love to ride in our 2-33's. One out of 4 rides turns into an
> > introductory training package. Doen't sound like we are scaring them
> > off.
> > The missing point is that it is not what you fly- it is that you fly.
> > There is room in our sport for many approaches without putting down
> > the other guy.
> > A little research would show the 2-33 was introduced in about 1972 and
> > likely is only second in our active fleet to 1-26's.
> > I think they have served us well.
> > UH
>
> I think it's you who's living in the past. I also don't think you are
> supporting youth. I think you have conned a bunch of people into
> suppoprting a tow plane. The 2-33 excells at that - it falls out of the sky
> so it needs a lot of tows. BTW, can't you use your real name?
>
> BTW, the first customer 2-33 I saw was in use in 1967 in Southern
> California. My logbook shows I instructed in them in 1970 so your 1972 date
> is bogus.
>
> Bill Daniels- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I stand properly corrected on introduction of 2-33.
Not hiding behind the name. UH has been Hank Nixon for more than 30
years and on this site fairly regularly.
As to supporting youth, over my career I and my wife have personally
provided nmore than 30 cost free scholarships to young people. I have
soloed about 25 on their 14th birthday and at least 4 times that many
in their mid teens.
Many of these are now aviation professionals.
I provide a glider to our club juniors at no cost to them except they
keep it clean.
Founding member of a club that has support of youth soaring as on of
its purposes in our bylaws.
Founded our local club out of my wife's and my pocket.
Tim Mara did pretty much the same thing at his club.
Others I don't know have done the same thing
Will wait and see if this sounds like the profile of a con man.
2-33's stay up at our site pretty much anytime the other ships stay
up. They just don't go cross country on less than 2 kt climbs.
Your zeal to promote ground launching is a good thing. There is a lot
of opportunity for this to help grow soaring where sites permit. Many
are smaller multiple use sites like public airports where it simply
won't work. It vey much depends on where you are.
True we could go buy some land in the lower Hudson valley of NY and
set up a winching operation.
Let's examine the tradeoffs:
Sell 2 tugs and raise about $75K
Buy enough land for winching gliderport- About $1.5MM-2MM
No more Friday afternoon tows where only the tow pilot has to show up
at lunch time.
Oh Yea- forgot. Sell the 2-33's for 24 K and go buy a couple 21's for
200K.
maybe this sounds like a winner to you but it makes less than no sense
to me.
As I said in my earlier comment, there are many ways to provide
soaring and they all should be used where they apply best.
The 15 year old girl that did her first 2 hr soaring flight last
weekend in my 1-26 off a $13 tow did not think she was getting taken
by a con man.
Your apology accepted in advance.
UH- You know who this is.

Papa3

August 16th 07, 02:40 PM

On Aug 15, 5:42 pm, "01-- Zero One" > wrote:
> "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
>
> :
>
>
>
> > I think it's you who's living in the past. I also don't think you are
> > supporting youth. I think you have conned a bunch of people into
> > suppoprting a tow plane. The 2-33 excells at that - it falls out of the sky
> > so it needs a lot of tows. BTW, can't you use your real name?
>
> <snip>
>
> > Bill Daniels
>
> Oh, my, Mr. Daniels! Are you ever in for a walloping! Before this is
> over, I bet you will wish you had just slapped your grandmother instead
> of posting this!
>
> I am going to just sit back and watch!!!!
>
> Larry
>
> 01 "zero one"

Now Larry, whatever could you mean by that comment :-)

Awww hell, I'll rise to the bait.

Bill, either you're intentionally playing dumb, or it's not an act.
Regardless, you ought to think before you criticize someone like
Hank. There's certainly room for disagreeing with his approach, but
you better be careful how you do it. Considering he (and a couple
of others from his club) have managed to keep alive an operation alive
and growing at Middletown for the better part of 30 years on the backs
of Schweizer Iron suggests that there's more than one way to skin this
cat.

I'll throw out the following as the keys to attracting new blood in
descending priority order from my experience as a past club president,
instructor, and SSA Governor:

1. First impressions. When someone shows up for their initial
ride, does it feel like the club/ FBO is excited to see them or are
they treated like a minor annoyance? Does he/she leave with an info
pack and next steps (e.g. the 3 flight introductory instruction
pack).
2. Operations. Does the club/FBO accomodate busy schedules and
respect the time that people are committing? Are the Instructors
professional and caring?
3. Challenge. Does the club/FBO help lay out a roadmap that goes
well beyond solo?
4. Hassle factor. Is it fun to come to the club/FBO or do you stand
a good chance at being yelled at for no good reason?
5. Socializing. Is there a reason to hang out before/after flying
or even on non-flying days?
6. Equipment. Is there enough of it and does it provide for some
logical progression beyond solo (say up to Gold badge) .

I'm not saying that an all glass fleet isn't nice to have or that it
doesn't contribute to the overall experience (it does). But, many
operations, at least in the US, have significant limitations based on
where they fly, the availability of hangar space, etc.

Also, wrt the winch vs. towplane, I think there's no question that
many of us would like to do more winching and less aero-towing.
However, one of the big problems is the availability of glider-only or
winch-friendly airfields. Take the NY/NJ area where I fly. Every
one of the glider operations works from busy GA airports with mixed
traffic. Imagine trying to fit in Winch launches while five 1-52s
try to shoot touch and goes in the pattern. Even if we proposed it
at our field, I can guarantee the airport manager would laugh himself
silly right before slamming the door behind us (and probably with good
reason).

As far as turning off the youth, that hasn't been our experience.
When we strap a 15 year old in the front seat of a 2-33, he/she can't
see the tube and steel behind him/her. It's just plexiglass and an
instrument panel. What does turn them off is crotchety old-timers
yelling at them for minor infractions and/or being the only kid among
a bunch of septegenarians.

Anyway, there's nothing here that hasn't been said before. However,
I'll just close by saying that anyone who thinks it's the gliders that
are holding back growth are barking up the wrong tree.

Erik Mann
LS8-18 P3 (started in a 2-22 btw)

Dan G

August 16th 07, 03:49 PM

I think things have become a bit mixed up. *I* advocate that the
demographic with the most potential to become long-term glider pilots
are those at or over around 45-50, who have lots of money and fewer
committments than in previous years. To catch them, you'll need a nice
fleet - e.g. PW6Us. There's other benefits to having a nice fleet -
any of your gliders are suitable for XC training, they're easier to
look after, and they're a lot safer.

If you're aiming for kids, you need to be cheap. As said, 2-33s etc.
make a lot of sense for that. Do not expect many of them to become
long-term glider pilots. Is that what your club wants? A high turn-
over of young members? Is that a sustainable way to grow a club? (Last
question not rhetorical - it may well work.)

I'd suggest going the shiny fleet route and use some of the higher
fees required to subsidise U25 flying to point of being dirt (i.e., at
cost) cheap. There, best of both worlds.

BTW Erik that's a magnificent list. Number 4 is one I'd stress in
particular - as soon as someone gets shirty with someone else during
what's a supposed to be a recreational activity, they're off, and will
never be seen again.

Dan

Bill Daniels

August 16th 07, 04:51 PM

"alex8735" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> >The missing point is that it is not what you fly- it is that you fly.
>
> I cannot really image that new shiny glas ships make all that
> difference. When I took up gliding with 15 years of age I was trained
> on the K13 and soon flew Ka8 and Ka6. I always thought these were
> beautiful gliders and a lot of fun to fly.

Yes, these are beautiful gliders and fun to fly. If only they had become
popular in the US. The 2-33 isn't even remotely in their league.

I suspect many in this discussion haven't even been in the front seat of a
2-33 in years - if ever. If you haven't, you need to go sit in one. The
first thing you will notice is that you are very uncomfortable. Then you
will notice that unless you have legs like straws you won't have full
aileron movement - in fact, you may have less than half. If you continue to
experiment with various control positions you will find something really
startling. If the spoiler control is positioned at 50%, where it would be
in a normal approach, your left leg will be trapped between the stick and
spoiler control blocking all left aileron. In fact, the stick will actually
strike the spoiler handle if you somehow remove your leg. If your arms are
not average or longer, you will find full down elevator is unavailable.
These are serious deficiencies and would most likely make the 2-33
impossible to certificate under current FAR 23 or JAR 22 rules.

Now get in the back seat - if you can. You will be even more uncomfortable
with the seat to back angle less than 90 degrees. Imagine an average size
student in the front seat blocking your view of the instruments. (For those
who haven't seen a 2-33, there are no instruments in the back seat.) Now
look up and to the side and see the wings blocking your view into a turn.
Ask yourself if you would be comfortable in a gaggle with a new student in
the front seat. Ask yourself if you would be willing to sit here for 8
hours instructing. Would you ask anyone else to do so?

Now get out - if you can. Inspect the glider carefully. Keep in mind that
these are very old gliders which have led a hard life. Look at the rusty
screen door springs holding the rudder pedals forward. If one of these
breaks, which they do regularly, the affected pedal will flop flat to the
floor where most pilots can't get it back into place while flying. Ask if
you would be comfortable with your child in the air with a missing rudder
pedal.

Pay particular attention to the upper surface of the "D"-tube skin. You
may well find diagonal cracks in the metal skin or patches where someone
else found cracks - these are metal fatigue. Look at the skins around the
inboard ends of the ailerons for cracks - another favorite place for fatigue
cracks. If there are patches, ask if anyone inspected the internal wing
structure for more cracks.

Now place your hand on the fin leading edge and lightly push aft. Be
prepared for the base of the fin leading edge to separate from the
fuselage. The single 3/16" bolt, or the thin aluminum tab that holds the
fin LE has broken on many 2-33's and has not been caught for many annual
inspections.

Notice I didn't ask anyone to actually fly the thing. That would be over
the top.

Bill Daniels

Tim Mara

August 16th 07, 06:30 PM

I know "UH" or Uncle Hank (Nixon) well enough to know that he is not only a
great sponsor of youth in soaring but a supporter of soaring in all aspects.
Hank does and has supported soaring like few others, he not only is an
instructor of many decades, but also has created and maintained his own
clubs operation, does glider and airplane repairs for himself, his club and
members as well.
What the sport needs more than anything else is more support from people
like UH, people willing to take on the responsibility of instructing,
encouraging and maintaining soaring clubs. It matters little if your
students fly 2-33's or any other glider to learn the sport, and if we don't
constantly tell them the 2-33 is a thing of the past they probably will
still show up and have fun learning.
In our club we have a K7 as our only club 2 seater for training...it does a
great job and does it cheap (We get $5.00 a flight for the K7 and K8) We
also have a Twin Grob on the field that is privately owned but can be used
by members as well...... the K7 is busy nearly every day we fly, while the
Grob typically sits in the back of the hangar... We bought a K8 a year ago
as our only other "Club glider"...students and new pilots love this
glider....it is to them their hot rod.....(again, don't tell them it's old
and a "thing of the past" we like to keep this as a secret...)
The philosophy is simple....provide training and club
gliders.....cheap....everyone has contributed to acquiring these
gliders....if someone wants a newer higher performance glider then "great
for them".....they can buy it with their money, not rob everyone else's
pockets for their personal wants...we have partnerships in the club so for
low cost members can buy into a Club Libelle or Pegasus and not expect
everyone else to be their "sugar daddy" if they can't afford a newer glider
themselves.
But back to the point, we're evolving further into the "me generation" if
you want to see soaring grow or sustain itself it takes more than fancy
gliders, it takes commitment and effort by people like UH that have, and
still do the grunt work. Become an instructor, take some time from personal
endeavors and give something back .. after all, it was somewhere in your and
my history a CFI did what was necessary to get us where we are today as
well.
Tim Mara
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

>> A little research would show the 2-33 was introduced in about 1972 and
>> likely is only second in our active fleet to 1-26's.
>> I think they have served us well.
>> UH
>
> I think it's you who's living in the past. I also don't think you are
> supporting youth. I think you have conned a bunch of people into
> suppoprting a tow plane. The 2-33 excells at that - it falls out of the
> sky so it needs a lot of tows. BTW, can't you use your real name?
>
> BTW, the first customer 2-33 I saw was in use in 1967 in Southern
> California. My logbook shows I instructed in them in 1970 so your 1972
> date is bogus.
>
> Bill Daniels
>

Kloudy via AviationKB.com

August 16th 07, 07:43 PM

Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>
>Personally, I like the 2-33 as a basic trainer because its simple and
>rugged, with lots and lots of crash-protection iron. Bill has a point
>that it is a distinctly unsexy aircraft. However, in my experience
>rugged unsexy trainers outperform broken trainers on most days of the
>week.

When I started to take an interest in soaring,(around 23 y/o with a little
extra cash to spare) I went out to the gliderport, looked at all of the
lovely white glass ships and just marveled at them.
On the field also was a little yellow 1-26 and an old Blanik. But mostly
private/syndicate operated glass planes.
I was struck and had to get into one of those things.
I was afraid of needing to train in that clunky looking Blanik and that put
me off a bit.
No problem as all training was done in a couple of K-21s and a G-103. After
getting my license, I happened to be out on Long Island. Terribly bored on
vacation, I saw a tow going on and had to investigate.
I happened upon a little operation that had a 2-33 and a single seat glass
plane. One flight in the 2-33 was interesting to say the least.
Not a horror, but not anywhere near a Pegasus or even a K-21.

I just didn't want to do it again as I needed a few flights to be checked-out
for the solo-seater. Ugh..I decided to wait until I went back home.
Just for me, I was put off by the tube-n-rag slug. I suspect it may be true
for others of my ilk.

fwiw

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/soaring/200708/1

Dan G

August 16th 07, 09:13 PM

I've had a very interesting e-mail (thank you!) from someone involved
at a club who are looking at PW6Us, and I'm sure he won't mind me
passing on some of his comments.

1. Yes, punters do like shiny gliders, but the ones who really want to
fly don't mind what they're in.

2. DGs are quite tricky for early-stage trainees, as they gain speed
rapidly with only small changes in pitch, and have very little wind
noise.

3. The PW6U is half the price of a DG1000. I agree with the my
correspondent that fleet consistency is important - we do have trouble
with pupils in my own club who mostly fly the 13s, but then have
flights in our single 21. It takes them a while to get used to the
different glider, which wastes instruction time. The price of the PW6U
makes a fleet of them realistic; a fleet of DGs is not.

3. PW6Us spin - K21s and G103s don't. (DGs do, at least with their
tail weights fitted.)

4. When they had the PW6U it wasn't thermic, so there's a question
over their XC performance, given their short wing span.

5. K13s and 2-33s led onto K8s and 1-26s perfectly. Nowadays pilots
spend little if any time flying non-GRP single-seaters before moving
on to higher-performance gliders. Something like the PW6U leads into
GRP single-seaters better.

6. The maintenance costs on old gliders can get high - new GRP gliders
don't have that problem.

7. The PW6U has been in full production for some time and reports on
their durability are good.

With regards to point 4, I looked up some values from the Dick Johnson
flight tests of the K21, G103 and PW6U (meters, pounds, fpm, and
knots!):

Glider K21 G103 PW6U
Span 17.0 17.5 16.0
Empty 850 860 760
Test 1230 1240 1150
Min sink 150@41 150@43 160@46
Best L/D 32@53 33@53 31@50

Dan

toad

August 16th 07, 09:28 PM

On Aug 16, 11:51 am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
....
> I suspect many in this discussion haven't even been in the front seat of a
> 2-33 in years - if ever. If you haven't, you need to go sit in one. The
> first thing you will notice is that you are very uncomfortable. Then you
> will notice that unless you have legs like straws you won't have full
> aileron movement - in fact, you may have less than half. If you continue to
> experiment with various control positions you will find something really
> startling. If the spoiler control is positioned at 50%, where it would be
> in a normal approach, your left leg will be trapped between the stick and
> spoiler control blocking all left aileron. In fact, the stick will actually
> strike the spoiler handle if you somehow remove your leg. If your arms are
> not average or longer, you will find full down elevator is unavailable.
> These are serious deficiencies and would most likely make the 2-33
> impossible to certificate under current FAR 23 or JAR 22 rules.
>
....

This certainly was my experience flying in a 2-33. If it handled 1/3
as sweetly as a 1-26, much fewer would complain about them.

Todd Smith
3S

Kloudy via AviationKB.com

August 17th 07, 12:45 AM

Kloudy wrote:

>Just for me, I was put off by the tube-n-rag slug. I suspect it may be true
>for others of my ilk.
>
>fwiw

Interesting...now that I have been recalling that flight, it was fascinating
and rather exhilarating being inside that shaking frame and fabric on tow.

Wow. I was just sitting on a little bench in a cage, wrapped in a sheet....
and we was flyin'.

I forgot about that part. That was fun.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

Greg Arnold

August 18th 07, 02:43 AM

Dan G wrote:

>
> Quickly RE DG1000 vs Duo - a club near me has also bought a second
> DG1000 rather than a Duo too. Why? Because the DG1000 is a far better
> ship. Unlike the Duo it is suitable for pre-solo training to
> comfortably out-running Duos on XC.

Why do you think the DG will outrun the Duo? The Johnson flight test of
the DG compared the polars of the Duo and the DG. They were equal
between 45 and 93 knots. The Duo was better under 45 knots, and the DG
over 93 knots. Since no one flies over 93 knots dry, it would seem that
the Duo would have the advantage.

It's a stronger glider with a far
> better design (people may laugh at the enormous landing gear but wait
> until a pupil gives you a heavy landing, or the glider lands out in
> crop. Then you'll know why DG designed it). I wouldn't bother
> replacing a G103 though. If it's tatty get it done up for a tiny
> fraction of the cost of a new aircraft. It's still a 1:33 glider and
> tough as nails.
>
>
> Dan
>

[email protected]

August 18th 07, 04:22 AM

On Aug 14, 4:11 pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> When buying new, what lead you to get a second DG-1000 rather than
> diversifying by getting a Duo Discus?
[snip]

I don't think we would have thought fleet diversity was a benefit.
With relatively low time pilots joining out club and working towards
flying the DG-1000S the less differences in the fleet the better. It
saves hassle with extra checkouts. And in a club all the little things
about procedures on how you rig gliders, charge batteries, connect
PDAs, where things get left, tied down etc. all is a pain the more
things are even the slightest bit different can cause lots of
problems.

I suspect some members would have also resisted getting the Duo
because of the differences in effectiveness of spoilers, worrying if
they might be pilots who get over-reliant on the very effective
DG-1000S spoilers. I know this not an issue on the Duo-X. Owning
several Pegasi the club is aware of the downside of less fleet
diversity with ADs or other issues hitting several gliders in the
fleet at the same time.

BTW BASA requires 60 flights and 30 hours PIC in a "high performance"
glider (L/D > 33:1) for members to fly the DG-1000S but try to give
new members lots of opportunity to fly in the DG-1000S, including
cross country, with other members. Up until then new members (mostly
freshly minted pilots training in 2-32s) can fly in the club Junior or
Grob 103. BASA has an all plastic fleet, does not do flight
instruction, that is handled at local commercial schools. The club
does a lot to encourages cross country flying, encourages mentoring,
allows members to take gliders on XC training camps or safaris,
participate in local league contests in out gliders, etc.

Personally if I was buying a two seater XC machine I'd buy a Duo-X
just for the much better handling and thermalling 'feel' of the
glider, flying the DG-1000S feels like a truck at times compared to
the Duo (I've flown a Duo probably over 50 hours, but I've not flown
the Duo-X yet but friends who have describe the aileron force and
general feel as about the same as the Duo). For a club with an exiting
DG-1000S I think it is a no-brainer to get another DG-1000S. (also
nice for members including me who want to acro it.)

Just my personal opinion, I don't speak for BASA.

Darryl

Darryl

Dan G

August 18th 07, 09:56 AM

On Aug 18, 2:43 am, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> Why do you think the DG will outrun the Duo?

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/vergleich-duo-e.html

Side-by-side test with variables minimised. I'd always take that over
tests taken on different days seperated by what, years? On the other
hand, most people will always automatically dismiss manufacturer-
supplied data.

Dan

Bruce

August 18th 07, 04:41 PM

Dan G wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2:43 am, Greg Arnold > wrote:
>> Why do you think the DG will outrun the Duo?
>
> http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/vergleich-duo-e.html
>
> Side-by-side test with variables minimised. I'd always take that over
> tests taken on different days seperated by what, years? On the other
> hand, most people will always automatically dismiss manufacturer-
> supplied data.
>
>
> Dan
>
I think very highly of DG and company. Their test was valid in 2000 - but given
that the Duo is now two revisions on, I wonder if the comparison is still the
same...

Just my 2c - and the reason I asked some questions.

[email protected]

August 18th 07, 04:50 PM

On Aug 18, 1:56 am, Dan G > wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2:43 am, Greg Arnold > wrote:
>
> > Why do you think the DG will outrun the Duo?
>
> http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/vergleich-duo-e.html
>
> Side-by-side test with variables minimised. I'd always take that over
> tests taken on different days seperated by what, years? On the other
> hand, most people will always automatically dismiss manufacturer-
> supplied data.
>
> Dan

Do you really think any of this will make a difference in the real
world? How do you factor the better control balance and 'feel' while
thermalling a Duo into cross country performance? There is such little
difference in these gliders actual XC performance that arguing one way
or the other is probably silly.

People are going to buy one or the other based on lots of other
factors, local vendor/agent support, familiarity on type, other
gliders locally, cockpit comfort, need for an acro trainer, ...
Especially with the Duo-X vs. a DG-1000S there is little in it and I
can't seriously believe that small differences in polar performance
would ever get near the top of anybody's real purchase decision.

Darryl

Dan G

August 19th 07, 09:48 AM

On Aug 18, 4:50 pm, " >
wrote:
> People are going to buy one or the other based on lots of other
> factors, local vendor/agent support, familiarity on type, other
> gliders locally, cockpit comfort, need for an acro trainer, ...
> Especially with the Duo-X vs. a DG-1000S there is little in it and I
> can't seriously believe that small differences in polar performance
> would ever get near the top of anybody's real purchase decision.

Did you read my original post on the matter? For your benefit:

On Aug 15, 9:29 am, Dan G > wrote:
> Quickly RE DG1000 vs Duo - a club near me has also bought a second
> DG1000 rather than a Duo too. Why? Because the DG1000 is a far better
> ship. Unlike the Duo it is suitable for pre-solo training to
> comfortably out-running Duos on XC. It's a stronger glider with a far
> better design (people may laugh at the enormous landing gear but wait
> until a pupil gives you a heavy landing, or the glider lands out in
> crop. Then you'll know why DG designed it).

The DG1000 is a superior club glider as it vastly more suitable for
uses other than pure cross-country. (The new "XL" cockpit is clearly
SH's second attempt to catch up with the DG, rectifying the problems
of the "snug" Janus fuselage.) For cross-country, the DG is either as
good, or better.

On Aug 18, 4:41 pm, Bruce > wrote:
> I think very highly of DG and company. Their test was valid in 2000 - but given
> that the Duo is now two revisions on, I wonder if the comparison is still the
> same...

As far as I can tell, the only difference applicable in normal flight
is the addition of winglets. How much effect does fitting winglets
have? I seem to remember that they could only achieve a benefit within
quite a narrow speed range.

Dan

John Galloway[_1_]

August 19th 07, 03:15 PM

At 08:54 19 August 2007, Dan G wrote:

>The new 'XL' cockpit is clearly SH's second attempt
>to catch up >with the DG, rectifying the problems of
>the 'snug' Janus >fuselage.

Just for interest - as I was looking around the prototype
Duo X at the factory in May 2005 one of the staff told
me that they were already planning modifications o
the cockpit 'to improve the separation of the pilots',
as he put it.

>
>As far as I can tell, the only difference applicable
>in normal flight
>is the addition of winglets. How much effect does fitting
>winglets
>have? I seem to remember that they could only achieve
>a >benefit within quite a narrow speed range.
>
That was true about some older winglets designs but
whole point of the Maughmer winglets now used on Schempp-Hirth
gliders is that there is either performance benefit
or no loss throughout the cross country flying speed
range. See Prof Maughmer's articles at:

http://www.mandhsoaring.com/winglets.html

[email protected]

August 19th 07, 04:36 PM

Dan, yes I read your original post and your other posts and I was
responding to your conclusions drawn from differences in the polars
and your comments like "comfortably out-running Duos on XC." Have you
now found sanity or do you still believe this?

Have you flown both gliders XC much so you can judge their real world
XC performance or have you just looked at the polars? I have about 50
hours XC in each of a Duo and a DG-1000S and I'd worry about my own
experiences flying both gliders XC and not making conclusions based on
reading somebody else review measuring tiny polar differences. They XC
with about the same performance and I'd certainly not claim either
ship can "comfortably out run" the other. I doubt that Karl
Streidrick, Tom Knauff or Gavin Wills (and Gavin operates a DG-1000S
amongst his fleet of Duos) worry about "being comfortably outrun" by
DG-1000S'.

And just so you don't read too much more else into that DG article -
I believe it was written before adding the mass balance needed for the
DG-1000S to meet the new flutter requirements. Adding that mass
balance is one of the reasons for the heavy aileron control forces on
the DG-1000S - by comparison the Duo has more harmonized control
forces and flies nicer when very slow scratching thermals on weak
days. You can slow it down a lot and float around a thermal with more
feel than in the DG-1000S. I'd want to consider that a factor in any
XC performance argument.

Darryl

On Aug 19, 1:48 am, Dan G > wrote:
> On Aug 18, 4:50 pm, " >
> wrote:
>
> > People are going to buy one or the other based on lots of other
> > factors, local vendor/agent support, familiarity on type, other
> > gliders locally, cockpit comfort, need for an acro trainer, ...
> > Especially with the Duo-X vs. a DG-1000S there is little in it and I
> > can't seriously believe that small differences in polar performance
> > would ever get near the top of anybody's real purchase decision.
>
> Did you read my original post on the matter? For your benefit:
>
> On Aug 15, 9:29 am, Dan G > wrote:
>
> > Quickly RE DG1000 vs Duo - a club near me has also bought a second
> > DG1000 rather than a Duo too. Why? Because the DG1000 is a far better
> > ship. Unlike the Duo it is suitable for pre-solo training to
> > comfortably out-running Duos on XC. It's a stronger glider with a far
> > better design (people may laugh at the enormous landing gear but wait
> > until a pupil gives you a heavy landing, or the glider lands out in
> > crop. Then you'll know why DG designed it).
>
> The DG1000 is a superior club glider as it vastly more suitable for
> uses other than pure cross-country. (The new "XL" cockpit is clearly
> SH's second attempt to catch up with the DG, rectifying the problems
> of the "snug" Janus fuselage.) For cross-country, the DG is either as
> good, or better.
>
> On Aug 18, 4:41 pm, Bruce > wrote:
>
> > I think very highly of DG and company. Their test was valid in 2000 - but given
> > that the Duo is now two revisions on, I wonder if the comparison is still the
> > same...
>
> As far as I can tell, the only difference applicable in normal flight
> is the addition of winglets. How much effect does fitting winglets
> have? I seem to remember that they could only achieve a benefit within
> quite a narrow speed range.
>
> Dan

Dan G

August 19th 07, 09:38 PM

On Aug 19, 4:36 pm, " >
wrote:
> Dan, yes I read your original post and your other posts and I was
> responding to your conclusions drawn from differences in the polars
> and your comments like "comfortably out-running Duos on XC." Have you
> now found sanity or do you still believe this?

Yep, in the light of your comments I now believe that both gliders are
virtually equal for XC. Don't see someone saying that on Usenet
everyday do you :-). TBH it was a bit of a throw-away comment - like
everyone else, I know that XC speed is down to the pilot, not the
glider - and I'm sorry it irked you so much.

Dan

Stewart Kissel

August 19th 07, 11:51 PM

Are DG's all finished in poly? What about Duo and
other SH products? Poly or gel?

Personally I think the exchange rate being a little
more favorable would make either ship more appealing.

[email protected]

August 20th 07, 04:52 AM

On Aug 19, 3:51 pm, Stewart Kissel
> wrote:
> Are DG's all finished in poly? What about Duo and
> other SH products? Poly or gel?
>
> Personally I think the exchange rate being a little
> more favorable would make either ship more appealing.

Does any sailplane manufacturer not have poly/acrylic paint as an
option now? On DG sailplanes it is an option, not standard, at least
the last DG price book I looked at. SH I think paint is still an
option not standard. But poly/acrylic paint is available on both and I
don't see why anybody now days would not go that way. For a few $k and
considering the base price of these sailplanes I'm suprised anybody
ordering one today would want to save a few $K by avoiding the paint
option.

That thick DG gel coat that looks just beautiful out of the factory is
prone to temperature cycling related cracking on the upper wing,
usually running from the spoiler box to the trailing edge. We had one
such crack in our gelcoat finished club DG-1000S ground out and
repaired but you never know it may come back. I have one similar in my
DG-303 barely visible but its there. I expect choosing poly/acrylic
paint would greatly reduce the chance of any similar cracking. My
*impression* is the SH gelcoat does not stand up to UV exposure as
well as the DG gelcoat do, but are much less prone to temperature
related cracks. I think Jack Harkin's new Duo-X (mentioned in other
Duo threads) has paint, but I'm not sure (she looks beautiful,
sigh, ... I'm in love).

It is nice to see some manufactures stopping messing around with long
lists of options and doing things like making acrylic paint the
standard, like Schleicher on the new ASH-30 (yes I know for the price
you'd hope so).

Darryl

Jeremy Zawodny

August 21st 07, 12:28 AM

wrote:
> On Aug 14, 4:11 pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
>> When buying new, what lead you to get a second DG-1000 rather than
>> diversifying by getting a Duo Discus?
> [snip]
>
> I don't think we would have thought fleet diversity was a benefit.
> With relatively low time pilots joining out club and working towards
> flying the DG-1000S the less differences in the fleet the better. It
> saves hassle with extra checkouts. And in a club all the little things
> about procedures on how you rig gliders, charge batteries, connect
> PDAs, where things get left, tied down etc. all is a pain the more
> things are even the slightest bit different can cause lots of
> problems.

Bingo. Fleet diversity is a double-edged sword. While it protects you
against a pain in the ass factory (*cough* Centrair *cough*) it
increases complexity of the club and introduces confusion and/or
currency issues for members who fly less frequently.

> I suspect some members would have also resisted getting the Duo
> because of the differences in effectiveness of spoilers, worrying if
> they might be pilots who get over-reliant on the very effective
> DG-1000S spoilers.

There were several strikes against the Duo in our early discussions
about buying the DG-1000 or a Duo. The Duo didn't have back seat gear
control, had a bit less ground clearance, lower spoiler effectiveness,
and no option for aerobatics (not that we really exercise that ability
as often as some thought we might).

And then there are physical comfort issues. The DG-1000 back seat can
be uncomfortable, but you can adjust the height and pad the heck out of
it. And it's roomy. The Duo, as we all know, has a front seat with no
spare room. We BASA pilots carry lots of little gizmos with us (well,
some do).

Being able to play with all the ballast weights in the tail is nice to
have, but for a club I sometimes think it's an unnecessary complexity...

> BTW BASA requires 60 flights and 30 hours PIC in a "high performance"
> glider (L/D > 33:1) for members to fly the DG-1000S but try to give
> new members lots of opportunity to fly in the DG-1000S, including
> cross country, with other members. Up until then new members (mostly
> freshly minted pilots training in 2-32s) can fly in the club Junior or
> Grob 103. BASA has an all plastic fleet, does not do flight
> instruction, that is handled at local commercial schools.

We do allow flight instruction in BASA ships. It's just that you can't
join the club until you've got a private certificate. But I did my
commercial work and checkride in a BASA ship (as several members have).

> Personally if I was buying a two seater XC machine I'd buy a Duo-X
> just for the much better handling and thermalling 'feel' of the
> glider, flying the DG-1000S feels like a truck at times compared to
> the Duo

Agreed.

I almost bought 1/4th (or was it a 1/3rd?) of a Duo a couple years back.
It's too bad the exchange rate keeps sucking. I'm starting to think
we missed a really good opportunity...

Jeremy

[email protected]

August 21st 07, 01:30 AM

On Aug 20, 4:28 pm, Jeremy Zawodny > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Aug 14, 4:11 pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> >> When buying new, what lead you to get a second DG-1000 rather than
> >> diversifying by getting a Duo Discus?
> > [snip]
[snip]
>
> > I suspect some members would have also resisted getting the Duo
> > because of the differences in effectiveness of spoilers, worrying if
> > they might be pilots who get over-reliant on the very effective
> > DG-1000S spoilers.
>
> There were several strikes against the Duo in our early discussions
> about buying the DG-1000 or a Duo. The Duo didn't have back seat gear
> control, had a bit less ground clearance, lower spoiler effectiveness,
> and no option for aerobatics (not that we really exercise that ability
> as often as some thought we might).

And just to be clear, Jeremy is talking about the initial evaluation a
few years ago around wether to purchase a Duo or DG-1000S. And a big
kicker was a very clean used DG-1000S became available and that really
did it. And for our club it was a better choice than a Duo for all the
reasons Jeremy mentions. When it comes to the current time, it is
fleet diversity issues that likely drives any purchase decisions. And
so wether the Duo-X has improved things are pretty much irrelevant for
our next club purchase.

[snip]

> Being able to play with all the ballast weights in the tail is nice to
> have, but for a club I sometimes think it's an unnecessary complexity...

Especially when the tail ballast box cover falls off in flight. But
blame there is shared between poor design and more importantly poor
preflight inspection -- it happened with me as PIC and Jeremy as my
passenger :-(. Some Duo operators I know do juggle tail water ballast
and once you have the suitable fill gear (e.g. hand pressurized
pesticide sprayer tank) out on the flight line I don't think it is
much hassle (how badly you could get a Duo out of CG range, if at all,
would be interesting to look at. The DG-1000S is pretty benign to tail
ballast box mistakes).

[snip]

Darryl