Schweizer visit to the desert

[[email protected]]

Our family family recently enjoyed a special one-day's visit to our
home and the gliderport from Les Schweizer. Kinda rare out here in the
Southwest.

Thrilled to hear from him the second and third (Kyle Schweizer)
generation Schweizers are upholding and continuing the over 70 year
family tradition of soaring. Even building an airstrip now in Cayuta,
New York.

One telling comment Les made that "most" of the SGS fleet is still
flying in 2007, with a review of serial numbers, revealed that is
ineed true. Taking inventory of our own little field; Schweizers are
certainly no longer the majority craft in US soaring, but most newbies
are still introduced to our sport either with a friend in the back
seat of the world's only three-seat Schweizer sailplane or a first
lesson in one of the very eaiest to fly, the 2-33 primary trainer.

I flew my first glider, an SGS 2-33, in 1971, soloing nine flights
later and have had a certain affection for, "Tin Birds" ever since.
But never realized just how much foresight and dedication it must have
required three brothers back then before the days of composites and
"See-you" software to make the tradition of an American glider a
reality lasting now into the next century.

Recommend, "Born to Fly", "Wings like eagles" and "Soaring with the
Schweizers" by Paul and Bill. Some unabashed tooting their own horns,
maybe, but even more facinating than the two bicycle building brothers
in Ohio in some ways.

Michael

[jeplane]

I recommend parking the Schweizers: they belong in museums!

Bringing new people to this sport and showing them a 40 years old
aircraft do nothing to promote soaring in this world of shinny ipods,
ATV's, mortorcycles etc...

PS: boy, do I expect to be lynched with this post!...:-)

[BT]

a well taken care of "antique" glider is a joy to fly .. and affordable..
many clubs flying only glass have to raise their costs so high to support
the purchase and operations with increasing fuel costs
that they become to expensive for that "kid hanging on the fence" to afford
and get started in flying

Especially when you can train in a 2-33 to solo.. and then immediately
graduate them into the 1-26 for their solo hours.
Add to that the lure of the glass 2 seat and single seater after the
"graduate" with a certificate.. it creates "goals" for advancement.

BT

"jeplane" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I recommend parking the Schweizers: they belong in museums!
>
> Bringing new people to this sport and showing them a 40 years old
> aircraft do nothing to promote soaring in this world of shinny ipods,
> ATV's, mortorcycles etc...
>
> PS: boy, do I expect to be lynched with this post!...:-)
>
>

[Nyal Williams]

I supppose you don't like antique airplanes, either.
Or old houses. or old cars. There are many kinds of
people other than those who will only indulge in what's
new and hot. Few of them will hang around after the
novelty wears off if that is what attracts them.

Then there are those who can't afford the top notch,
latest stuff. More used cars are sold than new ones.
Are those people to be cut off from any access to
the sport?

Your comment reminds me of a story I read in Reader's
Digest back when it was a marginally interesting magazine
for the dentist's office: Some old duffer had gone
out jogging in a pair of old pants and some beat up
tennis shoes. As he passed through a particular neighborhood
where two fellows were gabbing, one of them looked
and this jogger and then said to the other fellow,
'I always thought you shouldn't take up a sport unless
you could afford to dress for it.'


At 23:12 14 October 2007, Jeplane wrote:
>I recommend parking the Schweizers: they belong in
>museums!
>
>Bringing new people to this sport and showing them
>a 40 years old
>aircraft do nothing to promote soaring in this world
>of shinny ipods,
>ATV's, mortorcycles etc...
>
>PS: boy, do I expect to be lynched with this post!...:-)
>
>
>

[Kevin Anderson]

For the cost of a modern trailer you can have a glider and trailer and a
association that has supported it for over 50 years with their own
Championships every year. ( The original one-class competition) Go to
www.126association.org

I understand that some are intimidated by flying low performance gliders,
especially when flying crosscrountry, but do not knock it unless you have
tried it. Part of the reason is because so many people are trained in
higher performance two seaters, so when they get into a low performance
glider they are really intimidated. This is really a disservice to people
that cannot afford to plop down $25,000 or up for a more modern single
seater.

Another facet for myself and some others is the satisfaction of doing a task
in a 1-26. It's fun doing more with less.

Because of the cost of a 1-26 being the cost of a modern trailer, I was able
to purchase a glider and trailer in 2000 and have not looked back. I have
been flying for fun, racing in the Championships, chasing my badges and
having an incredible amount of fun with a really GREAT bunch of people that
also fly 1-26's.

So buy or borrow a 1-26 and come to the Championships next year at TSA and
see what flying low performance is all about. (Hint: it's all about FUN)

Kevin R. Anderson
SGS 1-26B S# 192
Gold with Diamond Goal


"Nyal Williams" > wrote in message
...
>I supppose you don't like antique airplanes, either.
> Or old houses. or old cars. There are many kinds of
> people other than those who will only indulge in what's
> new and hot. Few of them will hang around after the
> novelty wears off if that is what attracts them.
>
> Then there are those who can't afford the top notch,
> latest stuff. More used cars are sold than new ones.
> Are those people to be cut off from any access to
> the sport?
>
> Your comment reminds me of a story I read in Reader's
> Digest back when it was a marginally interesting magazine
> for the dentist's office: Some old duffer had gone
> out jogging in a pair of old pants and some beat up
> tennis shoes. As he passed through a particular neighborhood
> where two fellows were gabbing, one of them looked
> and this jogger and then said to the other fellow,
> 'I always thought you shouldn't take up a sport unless
> you could afford to dress for it.'
>
>
> At 23:12 14 October 2007, Jeplane wrote:
>>I recommend parking the Schweizers: they belong in
>>museums!
>>
>>Bringing new people to this sport and showing them
>>a 40 years old
>>aircraft do nothing to promote soaring in this world
>>of shinny ipods,
>>ATV's, mortorcycles etc...
>>
>>PS: boy, do I expect to be lynched with this post!...:-)
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Oct 14, 7:25 pm, "Kevin Anderson" >
wrote:
> For the cost of a modern trailer you can have a glider and trailer and a
> association that has supported it for over 50 years with their own
> Championships every year. ( The original one-class competition) Go towww.126association.org
>
> I understand that some are intimidated by flying low performance gliders,
> especially when flying crosscrountry, but do not knock it unless you have
> tried it. Part of the reason is because so many people are trained in
> higher performance two seaters, so when they get into a low performance
> glider they are really intimidated. This is really a disservice to people
> that cannot afford to plop down $25,000 or up for a more modern single
> seater.
>
> Another facet for myself and some others is the satisfaction of doing a task
> in a 1-26. It's fun doing more with less.
>
> Because of the cost of a 1-26 being the cost of a modern trailer, I was able
> to purchase a glider and trailer in 2000 and have not looked back. I have
> been flying for fun, racing in the Championships, chasing my badges and
> having an incredible amount of fun with a really GREAT bunch of people that
> also fly 1-26's.
>
> So buy or borrow a 1-26 and come to the Championships next year at TSA and
> see what flying low performance is all about. (Hint: it's all about FUN)
>
> Kevin R. Anderson
> SGS 1-26B S# 192
> Gold with Diamond Goal
>

Hear Hear!!

[[email protected]]

On Oct 15, 1:37 am, Nyal Williams
> wrote:
> I supppose you don't like antique airplanes, either.
> Or old houses. or old cars. There are many kinds of
> people

Yes, there are many kinds of people! But I can't think of any other
"sporting" activity that supports using "antique" (not my words here)
equipment in their mainstream activities or training. Sailing? Nope,
the sport went to glass 30 years ago! Auto racing? Nope. Cycling?
Nope. Heck even golf has modern composite clubs! All of the sports
have a place for classic accoutrements and these are very compelling
segments of the sport. I loved sailing an "older" wooden schooner, I
loved my MGA TC, both of which are my age or older (not tellin which)
but for everyday sailing give me a Jboat and an MX5 for comutting. And
I notice that most teenagers like an M4 for a roadster, not even
glancing at the Morgan standing right beside.
I love flying our clubs K8, even got a 200K in it this year (no logger
file as I wiped it trying to download, dang) but that does not mean I
would want to train in a K13. Looking at the cost, a used Twin III at
50K with a mortgage and insurance should cost a 40 member club about
10$ per member per month. And as this plane will probably last for the
next ??? years you would be growing the infrstructure of the club. As
to the suitability of the Twin III, K21, PW6 for ab initio training, a
lot of clubs in Europe have been doing this for years. As the air
molecules over both continents are (mostly) the same these should be
fine for training in the States.

Just my 1.428275€ cents worth!

Bob


Bob

[Ian Cant]

At 06:48 15 October 2007, wrote:
>
>Yes, there are many kinds of people! But I can't think
>of any other
>'sporting' activity that supports using 'antique' (not
>my words here)
>equipment in their mainstream activities or training.
>

Yes, you make an interesting point and there are many
kinds of people. But there are also eggs and apples
and oranges. Professional sports/entertainment like
NASCAR racing will always use the latest equipment
regardless of cost [but within restraning rules].
Some sports, like sailing, actually become more accessible
with modern equipment - try pricing a clinker-built
hull today against a glass one. And many pieces of
equipment simply wear out beyond repair and are replaced
with modern equivalents. Soaring does not fit into
any of these categories.

Soaring for beginners does cost more in glass in the
USA today. That may not be ideal, but it is true.
Sharing equipment within a club helps bring costs
down, but a 2-33 is still much less costly than a G-103.
And until the sport starts growing again, economics
will still be a very important consideration especially
for beginners.

There is also a strong argument for primary training
in low-performance equipment. You will learn the importance
of glide ratio faster and deeper when you are short
of L/D. You will have penetration burnt into your
memory when you have none. You will really appreciate
climbing in a thermal when it contrasts with sinking
like a stone in dead air. A lot of navies until recently
still had sailing vessels for cadet training for this
very reason, and most still encourage sailboat training
because it does teach you some things about the sea
that you may never learn in a frigate.

Agreed, low-performance training is not to everyone's
taste. But be-littling the Schweizers shows a certain
narrowness of mind. And remember, you are not compelled
to fly them -you only have to find the operation that
uses whatever kind of equipment you prefer.

I don't think you will find any of the Grob family
visiting remote gliderports. So for historic and sentimental
reasons alone, long live the Schweizers.

Ian

[Bob Whelan[_2_]]

Ian Cant wrote:
> At 06:48 15 October 2007, wrote:
>
>>Yes, there are many kinds of people! But I can't think
>>of any other
>>'sporting' activity that supports using 'antique' (not
>>my words here)
>>equipment in their mainstream activities or training.
>>
>
>
> Yes, you make an interesting point and there are many
> kinds of people. But there are also eggs and apples
> and oranges.

<Much sensible stuff snipped...>

> Agreed, low-performance training is not to everyone's
> taste. But be-littling the Schweizers shows a certain
> narrowness of mind. And remember, you are not compelled
> to fly them -you only have to find the operation that
> uses whatever kind of equipment you prefer. <More snipped...>

Well expressed, Ian. Having begun (U.S.) soaring in 1972 (when there
was a war going on that had nothing to do with oil and the middle
east...meaning, I've experienced 'many/the-usual' next-generational
attitudinal shifts), I've observed the 'new-vs.old' debate as it relates
to soaring, ever since then.

Now at an age when my thinking 'is supposed to he' certifiably ossified,
I'm periodically reminded how uncommon the ability to view things from
multiple (yet non-contradictory) perspectives sometimes seems to be.
The Great Schweizer Debate comes to mind (wry chuckle).

Dissing other's views when they differ from your own is a tactic *far*
over-used IMHO. Scorn is a tool, and shouldn't be over-/mis-used, for
risk of ruining its value entirely. Holding differing views on how to
train future glider pilots isn't fundamentally scornworthy. That's not
to suggest scorn may not have a place in (say) a training debate, e.g. a
view 'obviously' ludicrous/dangerous/economically fatal/etc. should be
exposed as such. After all, ideas have consequences, and not all
approaches have equal value.

That noted, choosing to continue to use older ships (e.g. Schweizers,
Grobs [don't laugh, my club is presently in the throes of precisely this
debate, and a 102 and 103 are 'the bad ships'], AS K-7/13's etc.), is
*NOT* a acornworthy decision, any more than an individual choosing to
keep and maintain an older vehicle (assuming it still meets its mission)
in place of periodically updating it 'just because,' is. Both
approaches have value, and pros, and cons.

Personally, until someone can, or, events (some other club's, ha ha)
demonstrate to me that a bet-the-club, economically risky
(gambling-based?) approach to growing (as distinct from merely
'churning') soaring has value, I find it difficult to out-of-hand
dismiss continuing to use proven hardware that with fundamentally low
carrying costs.

Let the debate continue...!!!


Regards,
Bob - not decisionally impaired - W.

[[email protected]]

Ian

I hadn't intended on disparaging the Schweitzer's nor their gliders! I
think the 1-26 may just be outranked only by the Libelle for beauty.

I am a fan of J3's, Champs, Stearmans and AT6's, planes that I have
experienced, but J3's are not used for early training anymore
(although I am now sure to learn from RAS that they most certainly
used in 3 locations worldwide for initial training) although that is
what they were designed for "wayback when"! If General Aviation flight
training had not latched onto the "modern" Cessna 150 or 172 for
general man off the street customers the world of GA would probably be
a lot different, the GA fleet would assumably be much smaller. And
heck, a lot of those flight training FBO's are now looking to replace
their existing fleets with composite aircraft. See the trend?

Again, just my 1.58234 (dollar value changed again this afternoon)
€cents worth!

Bob

[[email protected]]

Oops

Should be 1.48234 €cents!

Bob

[Nyal Williams]

The trend is obvious; I object only to the 'one size
fits all' notion.

At 20:01 15 October 2007, wrote:
>Ian
>
>I hadn't intended on disparaging the Schweitzer's nor
>their gliders! I
>think the 1-26 may just be outranked only by the Libelle
>for beauty.
>
>I am a fan of J3's, Champs, Stearmans and AT6's, planes
>that I have
>experienced, but J3's are not used for early training
>anymore
>(although I am now sure to learn from RAS that they
>most certainly
>used in 3 locations worldwide for initial training)
>although that is
>what they were designed for 'wayback when'! If General
>Aviation flight
>training had not latched onto the 'modern' Cessna 150
>or 172 for
>general man off the street customers the world of GA
>would probably be
>a lot different, the GA fleet would assumably be much
>smaller. And
>heck, a lot of those flight training FBO's are now
>looking to replace
>their existing fleets with composite aircraft. See
>the trend?
>
>Again, just my 1.58234 (dollar value changed again
>this afternoon)
>=80cents worth!
>
>Bob
>
>
>

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Bob Whelan wrote:
>
> That noted, choosing to continue to use older ships (e.g. Schweizers,
> Grobs [don't laugh, my club is presently in the throes of precisely this
> debate, and a 102 and 103 are 'the bad ships'], AS K-7/13's etc.), is
> *NOT* a acornworthy decision, any more than an individual choosing to
> keep and maintain an older vehicle (assuming it still meets its mission)
> in place of periodically updating it 'just because,' is. Both
> approaches have value, and pros, and cons.
>
> Personally, until someone can, or, events (some other club's, ha ha)
> demonstrate to me that a bet-the-club, economically risky
> (gambling-based?) approach to growing (as distinct from merely
> 'churning') soaring has value, I find it difficult to out-of-hand
> dismiss continuing to use proven hardware that with fundamentally low
> carrying costs.
>
I'd just like to add one thought: IMO the utility of low performance
trainers depends quite a lot on launch method.

I learnt on ASK-21 / G.103 / Puchacz off a Supacat winch, which pretty
much guaranteed 1200 feet with these gliders under calm conditions and
could give up to 2000 ft as wind strength rose. 1200 ft gives about 7
minutes in no-lift conditions with any of these trainers and a good
chance of thermal flights if there is much lift about. I did all my spin
training, apart from the initial demo, off the winch. IOW we found
enough lift to easily get to 3000+ feet on those flights.

By contrast, I periodically make attempts to get type approval for our
T.21b but its hard going. At 20:1 you don't cross the airfield boundary
without a good thermal climb, so a typical flight is a bare 5 minutes.
The T.21b doesn't climb well on the cable. This is barely enough time to
get a feel for the glider before you're turning base.

From this I make the, possibly dangerous, generalization that if your
club normally aero tows your can get by with lower performance trainers
than, e.g. a flat land winching site can use.

As a corollary, there's an obvious trade-off between tow vs winch costs
and the cost of low performance vs high performance two seaters. If, as
I suspect, increasing fuel prices tilt the balance toward winching then
just maybe the older, low performance trainers will start to look less
attractive.


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

[Tony Verhulst]

>
> Recommend, ..... "Wings like eagles".....

If you want to know who attended the SSA winter director meeting of 1957
on March 8-9 in Hollywood, California, and what was discussed, this book
is for you. I respect the Schweizer brothers a lot, but for me, this
book was a great way to get some quality sleep. Obviously, YMMV.

Tony V.

[Dan G]

We had a similar debate quite recently - see the PW6U thread. There's
strong arguments on both sides of the debate.

Old ships are cheaper to buy and insure, and probably about the same
to maintain (replacing fabric vs. re-gels). Certainly reduces costs
significantly. If a new member is really keen, he won't mind flying an
older glider. The kind of member who's only interested in flying the
latest shiny glider probably isn't in for the long-term.

On the other hand, new GRP gliders are much safer in a crash or heavy
landing (this is a very strong argument imho). They much more
comfortable for an instructor to spend all day in. They can be used
for XC training with ease - not struggling along, especially if your
club isn't blessed with always-booming conditions. Teaching XC in a
glider with performance representative of a glass single-seater is
much more relevant. Perhaps 90% of pilots will end up in a GRP single-
seater - training should reflect that. You need a "slippery" GRP
trainer for conversion at the very least, and I'd suggest that for
consistency the whole training fleet should either be one or the
other. I trained on a mixed wood and GRP fleet and having to adapt to
the very different flying characteristics of each every session really
slowed me down. Finally, having modern, attractive fleet is not
exactly a negative.


Dan

[jb92563]

On Oct 14, 4:08 pm, jeplane > wrote:
> I recommend parking the Schweizers: they belong in museums!
>
> Bringing new people to this sport and showing them a 40 years old
> aircraft do nothing to promote soaring in this world of shinny ipods,
> ATV's, mortorcycles etc...
>
> PS: boy, do I expect to be lynched with this post!...:-)


Gliding is a Hobby to some and a Sport to others.

The Hobby folks like various aspects like antiques, designing and
building their own glider, building a kit,
creating a great paint job and just tooling around the sky aimlessly
at times following their inner bird like impulses.

The Sporting folks like to race, optimize their performance and the
gliders, go the farthest, highest, longest and win....its a game for
them.

I'm sure there are other kinds of gliding folks as well that just like
the social aspects , stories, events, BBQ's....etc etc

Its all good....live and let live!

Just go out and have your own kind of fun....plain and simple.

Ray

[Scott[_1_]]

I think you meant PLANE and simple ;)

Scott
ANY glider is OK to me!!

jb92563 wrote:


>
> I'm sure there are other kinds of gliding folks as well that just like
> the social aspects , stories, events, BBQ's....etc etc
>
> Its all good....live and let live!
>
> Just go out and have your own kind of fun....plain and simple.
>
> Ray
>

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)