Club Glider Hangar?

[noel.wade]

Hi All,

I'm doing some research for my local club, and one of the things I'd
like to determine is how to increase the usage of our "glass" ships
(Astir, Apis, and L-33 - yes I know the L-33 is metal). All are kept
stored in trailers. These 3 ships (all in great condition) sit in
their trailers, only seeing 20-40 hours of flying per year.

A fair number of our members are older casual pilots who don't fly too
often - so when they show up they simply drag out an L-13 or our
club's 1-34 because its metal, its rigged, and its tied down about 100
feet from the flight-line. Same thing happens with our students and
young pilots - they learn in one of these craft, so they naturally
gravitate to flying what's already rigged and on the line. Not only
is this inefficient, but its also been driving new members to go buy
their own aircraft (having slogged through training in crowded metal
gliders, and never experiencing the glass club ships).

Although some of the blame lies with our club's existing policies and
operating methods, we have quite often had people talk about how they
would fly the glass ships more if they were already rigged and
accessible - but its hard to know how much of that talk is serious.
We do have a few "T" hangars for our towplanes, as well as a small
clubhouse, but no hangar-space for gliders at this time.

So here are my questions:

Has anyone out there been part of a club that bought a hangar in the
last few years?
If so, has storing your gliders rigged in a hangar actually increased
the flying activities and/or number of flights each glider gets?
Do you store powered aircraft (towplanes) in with the gliders? If so,
has that caused any problems?
How much has the cost of the hangar impacted your fees and operations?

I am interested in hearing from folks with actual practical experience
with a club that has a hangar - especially if the hangar was a new
acquisition in the last 5 - 10 years.

Thanks a bunch in advance!!

--Noel

[Mike Schumann]

My personal feeling is that ease of access is a huge issue. Our club has a
K8 and K7 that is hung in a large hanger. Because people consider these
gliders to be a hassle to get down (about a 5 - 10 minute job), they are
rarely flown.

My personal feeling is that the best solution is a glider specific T-Hanger,
similar to what was built in Scotland a couple of years ago:

http://www.scottishglidingcentre.co.uk/new_hangar_photos_3.htm#entry

With this arrangement, every glider is easily accessible. Cost becomes the
only obstacle.

Mike Schumann

"noel.wade" > wrote in message
...
> Hi All,
>
> I'm doing some research for my local club, and one of the things I'd
> like to determine is how to increase the usage of our "glass" ships
> (Astir, Apis, and L-33 - yes I know the L-33 is metal). All are kept
> stored in trailers. These 3 ships (all in great condition) sit in
> their trailers, only seeing 20-40 hours of flying per year.
>
> A fair number of our members are older casual pilots who don't fly too
> often - so when they show up they simply drag out an L-13 or our
> club's 1-34 because its metal, its rigged, and its tied down about 100
> feet from the flight-line. Same thing happens with our students and
> young pilots - they learn in one of these craft, so they naturally
> gravitate to flying what's already rigged and on the line. Not only
> is this inefficient, but its also been driving new members to go buy
> their own aircraft (having slogged through training in crowded metal
> gliders, and never experiencing the glass club ships).
>
> Although some of the blame lies with our club's existing policies and
> operating methods, we have quite often had people talk about how they
> would fly the glass ships more if they were already rigged and
> accessible - but its hard to know how much of that talk is serious.
> We do have a few "T" hangars for our towplanes, as well as a small
> clubhouse, but no hangar-space for gliders at this time.
>
> So here are my questions:
>
> Has anyone out there been part of a club that bought a hangar in the
> last few years?
> If so, has storing your gliders rigged in a hangar actually increased
> the flying activities and/or number of flights each glider gets?
> Do you store powered aircraft (towplanes) in with the gliders? If so,
> has that caused any problems?
> How much has the cost of the hangar impacted your fees and operations?
>
> I am interested in hearing from folks with actual practical experience
> with a club that has a hangar - especially if the hangar was a new
> acquisition in the last 5 - 10 years.
>
> Thanks a bunch in advance!!
>
> --Noel



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Frank Whiteley]

On Jan 9, 6:51 pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm doing some research for my local club, and one of the things I'd
> like to determine is how to increase the usage of our "glass" ships
> (Astir, Apis, and L-33 - yes I know the L-33 is metal). All are kept
> stored in trailers. These 3 ships (all in great condition) sit in
> their trailers, only seeing 20-40 hours of flying per year.
>
> A fair number of our members are older casual pilots who don't fly too
> often - so when they show up they simply drag out an L-13 or our
> club's 1-34 because its metal, its rigged, and its tied down about 100
> feet from the flight-line. Same thing happens with our students and
> young pilots - they learn in one of these craft, so they naturally
> gravitate to flying what's already rigged and on the line. Not only
> is this inefficient, but its also been driving new members to go buy
> their own aircraft (having slogged through training in crowded metal
> gliders, and never experiencing the glass club ships).
>
> Although some of the blame lies with our club's existing policies and
> operating methods, we have quite often had people talk about how they
> would fly the glass ships more if they were already rigged and
> accessible - but its hard to know how much of that talk is serious.
> We do have a few "T" hangars for our towplanes, as well as a small
> clubhouse, but no hangar-space for gliders at this time.
>
> So here are my questions:
>
> Has anyone out there been part of a club that bought a hangar in the
> last few years?
> If so, has storing your gliders rigged in a hangar actually increased
> the flying activities and/or number of flights each glider gets?
> Do you store powered aircraft (towplanes) in with the gliders? If so,
> has that caused any problems?
> How much has the cost of the hangar impacted your fees and operations?
>
> I am interested in hearing from folks with actual practical experience
> with a club that has a hangar - especially if the hangar was a new
> acquisition in the last 5 - 10 years.
>
> Thanks a bunch in advance!!
>
> --Noel

My first club had a small hangar, so all gliders were rigged and
derigged daily. We showed up at 8:30am and were flying by 9am and in
the pub by 8pm. Your 'legacy' members have set the club culture.
IMVHO, you need to change this, but it's not easy. Building a hangar
will have no impact.

Tell me, do you think your club is a success story? What time does
training start and end? How many new glider ratings have come from
your club in the past three years?

Frank Whiteley

[Frank Whiteley]

On Jan 9, 6:51 pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm doing some research for my local club, and one of the things I'd
> like to determine is how to increase the usage of our "glass" ships
> (Astir, Apis, and L-33 - yes I know the L-33 is metal). All are kept
> stored in trailers. These 3 ships (all in great condition) sit in
> their trailers, only seeing 20-40 hours of flying per year.
>
> A fair number of our members are older casual pilots who don't fly too
> often - so when they show up they simply drag out an L-13 or our
> club's 1-34 because its metal, its rigged, and its tied down about 100
> feet from the flight-line. Same thing happens with our students and
> young pilots - they learn in one of these craft, so they naturally
> gravitate to flying what's already rigged and on the line. Not only
> is this inefficient, but its also been driving new members to go buy
> their own aircraft (having slogged through training in crowded metal
> gliders, and never experiencing the glass club ships).
>
> Although some of the blame lies with our club's existing policies and
> operating methods, we have quite often had people talk about how they
> would fly the glass ships more if they were already rigged and
> accessible - but its hard to know how much of that talk is serious.
> We do have a few "T" hangars for our towplanes, as well as a small
> clubhouse, but no hangar-space for gliders at this time.
>
> So here are my questions:
>
> Has anyone out there been part of a club that bought a hangar in the
> last few years?
> If so, has storing your gliders rigged in a hangar actually increased
> the flying activities and/or number of flights each glider gets?
> Do you store powered aircraft (towplanes) in with the gliders? If so,
> has that caused any problems?
> How much has the cost of the hangar impacted your fees and operations?
>
> I am interested in hearing from folks with actual practical experience
> with a club that has a hangar - especially if the hangar was a new
> acquisition in the last 5 - 10 years.
>
> Thanks a bunch in advance!!
>
> --Noel

Think your club could build a hangar this way? (broadband required)

http://www.soaringchapters.org/chapters/c2006/tss_4.wmv

http://www.photoshow.com/members/Frauke/ click on TSS builds a club
house.

This looks like a success story.

Frank Whiteley

[noel.wade]

On Jan 9, 9:07 pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> Tell me, do you think your club is a success story? What time does
> training start and end? How many new glider ratings have come from
> your club in the past three years?
>
> Frank Whiteley

Frank -

This is a bit off topic..... But to be honest, IMHO the culture
appeared to be rotting in many ways. Its not that it was a bad group
of people - it was just aging, insular, and
"tired" (organizationally). Before I did soaring, I was involved in
amateur auto-racing and saw this in a similar club: A small group of
people stopped bringing in new blood, and then after the same people
did all the work for 20 or 30 years, they just burned out and the
thing started coming apart at the seams...

Luckily, we've just merged two local clubs into one, and along with
some newer members (including myself), that seems to have injected
fresh life into things! We are hopeful that this will give us the
boost we need to freshen our fleets, and get more organized about
training and bringing new members in. For years, there was this
attitude that you "couldn't soar" near Seattle - that you had to drive
to the other side of the state for desert conditions in order to
really fly. But some talented and energetic pilots started proving
that long flights were possible over here, and there's been a growing
movement to do more and more flying in our area.

Right now we're evaluating our fleets, our assets (including T-hangars
and such), our training, our fees, and are trying to come up with
revisions that will make this new club (of 150+ members) more vibrant
and sustainable. We're financially sound (although our fleet is
old). The big issue is going to be the cultural changes. "Show up,
fly a little, and leave" has become the norm - and lacking much social
interaction or volunteerism beyond a small core group is holding us
back IMHO.

But we have a cadre of ~20 dedicated people who are putting lots of
hours of work into making things better. If we can start retaining
students with a more formalized training regimen, and get people to
consider the glider operation an "all day affair" where everyone
pitches in, then we'll be in a great position. Its possible, just
going to take a sustained effort.

--Noel

[noel.wade]

On Jan 9, 8:17 pm, "Mike Schumann" >
wrote:
> My personal feeling is that the best solution is a glider specific T-Hanger,
> similar to what was built in Scotland a couple of years ago:
>
> http://www.scottishglidingcentre.co.uk/new_hangar_photos_3.htm#entry
>
> With this arrangement, every glider is easily accessible. Cost becomes the
> only obstacle.

OK, that is a cool solution. I had looked at similar designs, but the
wing supports are a clever and simple deal.

Thanks!

--Noel

[Cats]

On Jan 10, 6:41*am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 8:17 pm, "Mike Schumann" >
> wrote:
>
> > My personal feeling is that the best solution is a glider specific T-Hanger,
> > similar to what was built in Scotland a couple of years ago:
>
> >http://www.scottishglidingcentre.co.uk/new_hangar_photos_3.htm#entry
>
> > With this arrangement, every glider is easily accessible. *Cost becomes the
> > only obstacle.
>
> OK, that is a cool solution. *I had looked at similar designs, but the
> wing supports are a clever and simple deal.


That hanger works incredibly well. If the K21s had to be rigged &
derigged everyday the amount of flying they do would be less - it's so
quick & easy to get a glider out that they come out in weather when no-
one in their right mind would consider rigging, and might go back
without being flown. It's easy, no-one minds. They can also be got
out by a couple of people, and rigging a K21 seems to be a 3-person
job. The same applies to the private gliders in it. One of them is a
Bocian, whose bay cost more than the glider is worth, but again it
will come out for an evening if it's nice. Another is a Duo Discus.
That's kept in covers and putting the covers on takes almost as long
as derigging, but it can be done by one person. For people with bad
backs (or incipient bad backs) it's a huge boon. Another reason it's
good is that Portmoak is a wave and ridge-soaring site (as well as
getting thermal in summer), so there is potential soaring all year
round, but without the time spent rigging & derigging. Quite a few
gliders live pegged out in summer, but come October and they go back
in their boxes. Finally, it's drier in the hanger than in a trailer
which is good for the gliders.

[noel.wade]

> That hanger works incredibly well. If the K21s had to be rigged &

One "problem" we have in building a hangar is the size of our fleet
(currently 10 gliders and 3 tow-planes). However, most of these are
metal (2 L-13s, 2 L-23s, a 1-36, and a 1-34) and so they don't
necessarily need a hangar.

But our L-33, Astir, and Apis certainly could stand to be hangared.
Also, if we decide to trim the fleet and/or have a glass trainer or
two then we could make do with a reasonable-sized hangar (and possibly
derive a lot of value from it).

The idea of building a long-enough hangar row to rent out spaces is an
intriguing one, too...

--Noel

[Cats]

On Jan 10, 10:43*am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> > That hanger works incredibly well. *If the K21s had to be rigged &
>
> One "problem" we have in building a hangar is the size of our fleet
> (currently 10 gliders and 3 tow-planes). *However, most of these are
> metal (2 L-13s, 2 L-23s, a 1-36, and a 1-34) and so they don't
> necessarily need a hangar.
>
> But our L-33, Astir, and Apis certainly could stand to be hangared.
> Also, if we decide to trim the fleet and/or have a glass trainer or
> two then we could make do with a reasonable-sized hangar (and possibly
> derive a lot of value from it).
>
> The idea of building a long-enough hangar row to rent out spaces is an
> intriguing one, too...

AFAIK over half the gliders in the SGC hanger are privately owned -
all the way down one side and a couple of bays in the other side, plus
the Walking on Air K21 is in it as is the EUGC K21. Over half the
money was private money. The deal was that in putting up money to
build people were paying x years advance rental on their bay - after
that time they will pay per year.

So look at your private fleet. How many are plastic? How many owners
really hate rigging and derigging? How many are getting too old to do
so, or have physical problems that make it difficult, or want to fly
when it's hard to find bodies to help rig/derig? And even though the
metal planes & gliders *could* live outside, are there benfits to
keeping them in a hanger, or having a hanger bay or two available?

Apparently the design can be extended later as well, but obviously the
cost per bay gets lower as more bays are built.

[BB]

The problem may not be hardware. Our club has a beautiful ASW24 and
Duo Discus, along with a Blanik and ASK21, all of them hangared and
easy to take out. The 24 and duo get surprisingly little usage. Why?
Few of our members are checked out to fly them! Why not? We have
enough instructors, and they're all happy to do a checkout. But you
have to ask, read the manual, and take the time to do it, and in some
cases brush up your skills a bit. Most club members are happy to fly
the blanik solo and don't on their own take steps to move up. It
sounds like your club has a similar situation, and based on our
experience the glass gliders might not get a lot more usage even if
they were hangared. In both situations, maybe what we need is some
organized push to get people to improve their skills.

It's very interesting that your club members will buy and assemble
their own gliders, but not the club gliders. Do the club gliders have
other restrictions, like "you can only fly it for an hour" or "you
can't fly it cross country?" If so, the fact that members are willing
to assemble their own gliders suggests that removing these
restrictions is the key to getting more usage. Our club has a 1 hour
rule, but you're allowed to take the glider all afternoon IF you're
going to go cross country. That has helped (though there is still not
enough demand to learn to fly cross country)

Another idea. How about changing club policy so that the gliders get
assembled every day? Along with "gas up towplane" the first thing
clubmembers are expected to do before flying every day is "assemble
Apis", whether or not you personally want to fly it? Now the excuse is
gone.

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

As several others have commented my take would also be that the
motivation level of club members to get in the air and enjoy soaring
is not as high as it could be. I do believe that ready rigged gliders
are helpful, but at our club I can tell you that everyone of the
privately owned gliders has to be rigged each flying day and they are
enthusiastically . Sometimes one or other of the club gliders ( all
are assembled and in the hangar ) might not get taken out to the field
for flying ! The trainers usually are well used but the single seaters
are very poorly used, in fact we are selling one as we can't justify
having two .
Well done to the instructors who keep the enthusiasm level up with
students but shame on the rest of us for not encouraging and pushing
the post solo pilots into setting some goals like badge flying to help
them discover the FUN of leaving the field and cross country flying.
Over the years I have become convinced that one of the biggest dangers
for a club is to not spend time on encouraging new pilots and members
to seek improvements in their flying abilities.
Some ideas that have worked, and are aimed at better morale include:

* Encouraging Badge flying .
* Club boards posted in the hangar each new year for pilots to write
up good flights ( Best altitude , Best distance , Best
duration ,etc )
* Regular club contests ( modest cross country tasks , spot
landings ,etc )
* Taking new pilots on cross coutry flights in 2 seaters .

It might be worth considering a club member or two taking
responsibility for trying to promote some of these activities and
remember it's the next generation of soaring pilots that need to be
targetted . Good Luck.

Ron Clarke.

[Adam]

On Jan 9, 10:17*pm, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
nospam.com> wrote:
> My personal feeling is that ease of access is a huge issue. *Our club has a
> K8 and K7 that is hung in a large hanger. *Because people consider these
> gliders to be a hassle to get down (about a 5 - 10 minute job), they are
> rarely flown.
>

> Mike Schumann
>

And I cannot explain the Junior...it sits on the floor of a hangar
collecting dust all season. I'd be surprised if it logged 10 hrs TTA.

Only once last year did we have all five ships on the line, and that
was a crappy day. The reason: the club president was acting flight
operations officer that day and pushed hard to get everything in the
air.

/Adam

[Cats]

On Jan 10, 5:09*pm, Adam > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 10:17*pm, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
>
> nospam.com> wrote:
> > My personal feeling is that ease of access is a huge issue. *Our club has a
> > K8 and K7 that is hung in a large hanger. *Because people consider these
> > gliders to be a hassle to get down (about a 5 - 10 minute job), they are
> > rarely flown.
>
> > Mike Schumann
>
> And I cannot explain the Junior...it sits on the floor of a hangar
> collecting dust all season. I'd be surprised if it logged 10 hrs TTA.

Rigged? Amazing if it is. But do several other gliders have to be
pulled out to get at it? And is it very different to fly to anything
else that you have e.g. does it need a period of adjustment?


> Only once last year did we have all five ships on the line, and that
> was a crappy day. The reason: the club president was acting flight
> operations officer that day and pushed hard to get everything in the
> air.
>
> /Adam

Our clib gliders live rigged in a hanger, getting another one in the
air is easy and we do it all the time if there is a queue to fly - and
that's a queue to fly Juniors!

As to rigging one's own glider, I'm looking forward to being able to
keep mine, rigged, in a hanger as I'm going to do my back in if I keep
rigging to fly. Plus, I can fly when I only have time to DI & fly,
rather than rig, DI, fly & derig. Finally it always feels to me like
rigging & derigging are times when a glider can be damaged, and I'm
keen to avoid that.

[Cats]

On Jan 10, 3:11*pm, BB > wrote:
> The problem may not be hardware. Our club has a beautiful ASW24 and
> Duo Discus, along with a Blanik and ASK21, all of them hangared and
> easy to take out. The 24 and duo get surprisingly little usage. Why?
> Few of our members are checked out to fly them! Why not? We have
> enough instructors, and they're all happy to do a checkout. But you
> have to ask, read the manual, and take the time to do it, and in some
> cases brush up your skills a bit.

Where I fly, the policy is to get new solo pilots into the single-
seater asap (of course their skills have to be suitable) as 1) we have
more of those than K21s, 2) it's less problematic for the club in
terms of lose of gliders if they have a accident, 3) people cannot be
instructed in a K21 that's being flown solo.

> Most club members are happy to fly
> the blanik solo and don't on their own take steps to move up. *It
> sounds like your club has a similar situation, and based on our
> experience the glass gliders might not get a lot more usage even if
> they were hangared. In both situations, maybe what we need is some
> organized push to get people to improve their skills.

I'd agree with that.



>
> It's very interesting that your club members will buy and assemble
> their own gliders, but not the club gliders. Do the club gliders have
> other restrictions, like "you can only fly it for an hour" or "you
> can't fly it cross country?" If so, the fact that members are willing
> to assemble their own gliders suggests that removing these
> restrictions is the key to getting more usage.

I rig and fly my own glider as much as possible as it's part of the
financial justification for buying it. My last good flight in a club
single-seater was about $130! In my own it would have been about $40
- just the aerotow cost.

> Our club has a 1 hour
> rule, but you're allowed to take the glider all afternoon IF you're
> going to go cross country. That has helped (though there is still not
> enough demand to learn to fly cross country)
>
> Another idea. How about changing club policy so that the gliders get
> assembled every day? Along with "gas up towplane" the first thing
> clubmembers are expected to do before flying every day is "assemble
> Apis", whether or not you personally want to fly it? Now the excuse is
> gone.

I suspect you'd find people turning up late & leaving early to avoid
the heavy work...

[Cats]

On Jan 10, 4:35*pm, " > wrote:
<snip>
> Some ideas that have worked, and are aimed at better morale include:
>
> * Encouraging Badge flying .

Do all the club single-seaters have loggers and/or barographs?

> * Club boards posted in the hangar each new year for pilots to write
> up good flights ( Best altitude , Best distance , Best
> duration ,etc )

We have lots of cups given out every year at the annual dinner, in
addition there are the club ladders based on the BGA ladder.

<snip>

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Adam wrote:
> And I cannot explain the Junior...it sits on the floor of a hangar
> collecting dust all season. I'd be surprised if it logged 10 hrs TTA.
>
How is it used? My club has two Juniors and which get well used. I'd put
that down to the following:

- all new solo pilots get booted out of the two seaters after 5 flights
and a couple of check rides and are converted to the Juniors. That
said, at first they'll be expected to take a check ride each day
before flying a Junior and the instructors will decide if the weather
is suitable. Once they're judged competent in them, the Junior pilots
are expected to fly within their capabilities on much the same basis
as any other solo pilot.

- we are a strong XC club, so Junior pilots are expected to work on
getting their Bronze and Silver badges. A lot of us did all three
Silver legs in a Junior. I did height and duration while working on
Bronze and got distance as soon as I had my Bronze XC endorsement.

For non-UK readers, the Bronze endorsement includes field selection,
field landing and navigation exercises.

- the club culture assumes that solo pilots will become XC pilots and
will work up the qualification ladder, first to their 100 km diploma
and then on to Gold and Diamond badges, so there's a clear path to
increasing skills and achievements for new pilots to follow.

- we also have a Pegase 90 and two Discii. These are run like a
syndicate with about 12 members. Single Seat Scheme members get a cost
discount in return for buying pre-paid blocks of air time and can book
the gliders for a day at a time with the expectation that they will go
XC in them. Other pilots can use them if they haven't been claimed by
Scheme members.

Maybe some variation of our approach would improve the Junior utilization?

I should add that I enjoy flying Juniors. They're nice handling gliders
that thermal well and spin nicely. I normally fly them during the winter
to maintain proficiency while my Libelle stays tucked up in its trailer.


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

[BrianHood]

>
> It's very interesting that your club members will buy and assemble
> their own gliders, but not the club gliders. Do the club gliders have
> other restrictions, like "you can only fly it for an hour" or "you
> can't fly it cross country?" If so, the fact that members are willing
> to assemble their own gliders suggests that removing these
> restrictions is the key to getting more usage.

The Private gliders tend to either be very light and easy to rig or
come with Cora trailers and rigging aids. They usually have automatic
hook-ups as well. The problem is as much in the trailer and support
gear as the glider. I'm in the same club as Noel, who started this
thread, am working hard to help get things in high gear, and think a
hanger is very important. But I won't need to keep my DG303 in it.

Thanks for all the input. Really helpfull.

Brian

[Mike Schumann]

Not only can you do damage to the glider when rigging and derigging, but
there have been numerous accidents resulting from rigging errors, quite a
few of which were fatal.

If you have the luxury of hangers, you end up with an inherently safer
operation. Not to mention the obvious advantages of time and effort that
become more important as we age.

It would be really helpful if we could get one of the companies marketing
steel hangers to come up with a standard glider hanger design so that
interested clubs would be able to order economical hanger kits that they can
either self build, or have erected by a local contractor.

Mike Schumann

"Cats" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 10, 5:09 pm, Adam > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 10:17 pm, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
>
> nospam.com> wrote:
> > My personal feeling is that ease of access is a huge issue. Our club has
> > a
> > K8 and K7 that is hung in a large hanger. Because people consider these
> > gliders to be a hassle to get down (about a 5 - 10 minute job), they are
> > rarely flown.
>
> > Mike Schumann
>
> And I cannot explain the Junior...it sits on the floor of a hangar
> collecting dust all season. I'd be surprised if it logged 10 hrs TTA.

Rigged? Amazing if it is. But do several other gliders have to be
pulled out to get at it? And is it very different to fly to anything
else that you have e.g. does it need a period of adjustment?


> Only once last year did we have all five ships on the line, and that
> was a crappy day. The reason: the club president was acting flight
> operations officer that day and pushed hard to get everything in the
> air.
>
> /Adam

Our clib gliders live rigged in a hanger, getting another one in the
air is easy and we do it all the time if there is a queue to fly - and
that's a queue to fly Juniors!

As to rigging one's own glider, I'm looking forward to being able to
keep mine, rigged, in a hanger as I'm going to do my back in if I keep
rigging to fly. Plus, I can fly when I only have time to DI & fly,
rather than rig, DI, fly & derig. Finally it always feels to me like
rigging & derigging are times when a glider can be damaged, and I'm
keen to avoid that.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[noel.wade]

On Jan 10, 11:36*am, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
nospam.com> wrote:
> It would be really helpful if we could get one of the companies marketing
> steel hangers to come up with a standard glider hanger design so that
> interested clubs would be able to order economical hanger kits that they can
> either self build, or have erected by a local contractor.
>

Mike -

The "Ensign" hangar and the "Sidewiser" hangar are standard designs
that are available as affordable kits. However, they're really only
good for 1 - 2 gliders. An economical solution for 5 - 20 gliders
(such as the design of the hangars at the Scottish Glider Centre) is
what we could use (and I suspect what a few other clubs could use as
well).

John -

Its funny you mention the time limit. That's really the ONLY reason I
went out and bought my Russia. Our club's Apis is being used so
seldom that I could have had a lot of fun in it - but I want to fly XC
and around here that means 3 - 5 hours. Our club limits the use of
club gliders to 1 hour (or 2 hours if you make radio contact after the
first hour and no one is in line for it). Some members claim that
there's an "exception clause" that allows the Apis to be flown all day
if you're the first person to rig it - but I have not found that rule
written into our club's bylaws and refuse to "cheat" the system that
way.

I have no "hard evidence" to back it up - but I personally feel that
it is a big discouragement to limit the flying time like that.
ESPECIALLY if people have to go through the trouble of rigging and de-
rigging the glider just to fly it for 1 or 2 hours!

...As far as training goes: I like the idea of kicking people out of
the 2-seaters at some point. I don't know if we can do it _right_
after solo - but certainly at some point afterwards. We are trying to
slim down our fleet some and people have objected to reducing our
Blanik count from 4 to 3, because they're used "so heavily". If we
only allowed instructional flights and demo rides in the Blaniks, I
think we could get away with only having 3 with no problem.

We get a lot of interested students who come out and sign up (and the
XC pilots in our club are really driving a lot of the interest and
enthusiasm around here); but then the new members leave the club
because they don't feel that they are getting timely instruction or
guidance. Some of that is their fault (showing up mid-day and
complaining about not getting more than 1 flight) - but some of it is
a lack of organization and operational rigidity. Instructors aren't
paired with students on a regular basis, you just come grab whatever
CFIG is available that day and he hops in the cockpit with you and
goes. Definitely less than ideal, IMHO.

It also doesn't help that our current club uses a clunky 1-36 as its
"transition trainer" to single-seaters. No one likes the aircraft, so
there's not a lot of enthusiasm to get students into it. Also, the
club that merged with us had a flight rule that _required_ students to
land a 1-26 out in a field, disassemble it, and trailer it back to the
airport. They had to do this before they could ever go cross-country
in club equipment.

These are all known issues that we're working to correct.

Information from other clubs on similar issues and how you've
conquered them are always appreciated!

Take care,

--Noel

[John Galloway[_1_]]

At 19:42 10 January 2008, Mike Schumann wrote:
>Not only can you do damage to the glider when rigging
>and derigging, but
>there have been numerous accidents resulting from rigging
>errors, quite a
>few of which were fatal.
>
>If you have the luxury of hangers, you end up with
>an inherently safer
>operation. Not to mention the obvious advantages of
>time and effort that
>become more important as we age.
>
>It would be really helpful if we could get one of the
>companies marketing
>steel hangers to come up with a standard glider hanger
>design so that
>interested clubs would be able to order economical
>hanger kits that they can
>either self build, or have erected by a local contractor.
>
>Mike Schumann
>



I could put interested parties in touch with the designer
of the Scottish Gliding Union hangar and you could
adopt a proven design. It would be hard to come up
with a more space and material efficient design. There
is another one being constructed at an English club
and a second one is being planned for Portmoak making
3 in total. The second Portmoak hangar will probably
have minor changes to the roof height and pitch to
cater for high dihedral wingletted gliders like the
V 2cxT and D2cT. There will also be a gravel floor
rather then the mix in the original hangar and also
detail changes to the door runners.

The design is based around bays suitable for 18m gliders
although, because the two rows of gliders are necessarily
offset, there is one smaller 15m bay and one larger
bay (for Duos) etc at each end of the hangar.

The second SGU hangar will be entirely financed by
individual and syndicate private glider owners but
owned by the club. (All the club gliders are already
housed in the first hangar) The investors will get
16 years free hangarage and trailer parking before
having to pay for their hangar bay. Within that period
they will have the right sell the residual time in
that bay at whatever price they can get for it. A
similar financial model might interest other clubs.

John Galloway

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

noel.wade wrote:
>
> ...As far as training goes: I like the idea of kicking people out of
> the 2-seaters at some point. I don't know if we can do it _right_
> after solo - but certainly at some point afterwards.
>
Well, it IS a matter of presentation. By the time our students are
approaching solo they've seen the Juniors being flown and heard all
about them, so they're usually quite eager to make the transition. Like
some other clubs, we have enough trade for our two seaters without tying
them up as early solo gliders. Besides, that's what Juniors were
designed for. They're strong, easy to fly, with a low landing speed and
that huge shock absorbing wheel. Derek Pigott thinks its the ideal early
solo glider. Its a little go-cart of a glider that feels really light
and handleable after a K.21 - much the same as I hear about the 1-26.

You need to get your CFI-Gs into it so they're ready to brief the new
solos making the transition. Our instructors are required to be familiar
with all club single seaters for just that reason and get several hours
per year free in the club ships to make that happen. Maybe a similar
allowance would get your ball rolling too?

Once the Junior is out and being flown regularly word should spread
about how nice it is and a queue should form. I bet part of the problem
is that nobody wants to fly it simply because its never flown and
"therefore there MUST be something wrong with it".

I flew my Silver distance in one and did it remarkably slowly, but that
was down to me, not the glider. The Poles have reportedly done 300s in
them, though its a bit slow for serious XC. You don't fly faster than 60
kts if you want to stay high, but they thermal well and are brilliant at
tiptoeing along weak evening energy lines. They have considerably better
performance on paper than a 1-26. I'd love to fly both back to back some
day.

BTW, what market was the 1-26 aimed at?

> We get a lot of interested students who come out and sign up (and the
> XC pilots in our club are really driving a lot of the interest and
> enthusiasm around here); but then the new members leave the club
> because they don't feel that they are getting timely instruction or
> guidance.
>
We introduced a booking scheme to deal with that. Students can book a
K.21 for half a day, which guarantees at least a half share of the
glider and instructor. Part of the deal is that they must be there to
unpack the hangar (morning booking) or to put stuff away (afternoon
booking). This seems to work well and is popular with the students: its
an online booking scheme via the club's web site.

There's usually a third two seater available for trial flights and club
members who want to fly it, so casual flying and check rides don't
interfere with the booking scheme.

> It also doesn't help that our current club uses a clunky 1-36 as its
> "transition trainer" to single-seaters.
>
Was that intended as an early solo glider? How does its performance and
handling compare with a Junior?

> No one likes the aircraft, so
> there's not a lot of enthusiasm to get students into it.
>
Ah, but have you asked the students? If its as viceless as a K21 and
performs a bit better they just might like it. Hmm, or maybe not. On
paper a K21 will outperform it and the Junior would have it for breakfast.

> Also, the
> club that merged with us had a flight rule that _required_ students to
> land a 1-26 out in a field, disassemble it, and trailer it back to the
> airport. They had to do this before they could ever go cross-country
> in club equipment.
>
That's not so silly. The land-out requirement is sort of equivalent to
having out Bronze with XC endorsement. Out Juniors are usually rigged,
but the higher performance club gliders are often kept in their trailers
on the grounds that anybody going XC in them must know how to rig and
de-rig them.

> Information from other clubs on similar issues and how you've
> conquered them are always appreciated!
>
HTH


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

[noel.wade]

On Jan 10, 4:46*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:

> that huge shock absorbing wheel. Derek Pigott thinks its the ideal early
> solo glider. *Its a little go-cart of a glider that feels really light
> and handleable after a K.21 - much the same as I hear about the 1-26.

They sound nice! Don't know that there are many in the States. With
the Euro & Dollar situation, we CERTAINLY cannot afford to import
anything right now! :-P

> per year free in the club ships to make that happen. Maybe a similar
> allowance would get your ball rolling too?

Right now CFIGs and Tow Pilots are pretty much "free" of all fees,
though I think they do have to pay for solo (non instructional)
tows.

> We introduced a booking scheme to deal with that. Students can book a
> K.21 for half a day, which guarantees at least a half share of the
> glider and instructor. Part of the deal is that they must be there to

Yeah I'm working on something similar via an online calendar system on
our site. It won't be a "binding reservation system" for all gliders
(members are howling about past failed experiments with that) - but I
do want to try to restrict training to specific hours and only 2
students per instructor per day, to increase the quality of
instruction and frequency of flights (rather than 5 or 6 students
showing up and overloading 1 CFIG).

> Was that intended as an early solo glider? How does its performance and
> handling compare with a Junior?

The 1-36 is _not_ a great first ship. Its not horrible; but its
aileron performance is very poor at low speed (every Schweizer is
different, ours is apparently worse than average), and it has a LOT of
weight on the tail. The short fuselage makes it prone to PIOs on
takeoff (though I didn't have a problem with it myself, I can see how
people would).

> Ah, but have you asked the students? If its as viceless as a K21 and

Hahah, ASK-21? We use Blanik L-13s and 23s. We have no glass 2-
seaters. :-( There was a donated DG-1000, but it was designated for
"advanced training" by the foundation that manages it (they want to
use it as collateral for a potential airfield purchase at some point
in the future). Then they required pilots to have their Silver Badge
before they could use it. And now its basically being paid for by a
syndicate (a club within the club) of about 14 pilots. *sigh* No one
else can use it...

> That's not so silly. The land-out requirement is sort of equivalent to
> having out Bronze with XC endorsement. Out Juniors are usually rigged,
> but the higher performance club gliders are often kept in their trailers
> * on the grounds that anybody going XC in them must know how to rig and
> de-rig them.

Right, and part of a ground checkout for our gliders is to be able to
(at the very least) talk your way through a rig/derig of the glider in
question. But a 1-26 is not the most convenient glider to physically
de-rig in a field and trailer back to the airport. Would be nicer to
use our Apis or something similar if we *do* have that requirement, so
that it wasn't such a big ordeal to make it happen.

Thanks a bunch, Martin... The more info, the better!

--Noel

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

noel.wade wrote:
>
> Thanks a bunch, Martin... The more info, the better!
>
Glad to help.

Sorry about the Junior/K.21 mixup. It was getting late and I must have
confused two posts. Our booking system isn't binding, but if you show up
late you loose your claim on the glider if anybody else wants it.

There are or were about 4 Juniors in the USA. Williams Soaring had one
in which I flew in 2001. It was the nicest Junior I've seen: in
excellent condition and retro-fitted with a hydraulic brake which
actually worked without binding. The brake activation was by applying
full air brake rather than the usual lever on the front of the air brake
handle.


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

[Cats]

On Jan 11, 1:33*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
<snip>
>
> There are or were about 4 Juniors in the USA. Williams Soaring had one
> in which I flew in 2001. It was the nicest Junior I've seen: in
> excellent condition and retro-fitted with a hydraulic brake which
> actually worked without binding. The brake activation was by applying
> full air brake rather than the usual lever on the front of the air brake
> handle.

That would be nice. Wish my glider could have that!

[Bruce]

One club I fly at had a perpetual problem with low usage of it's glass two
seater. The K13 was what everyone learned on, and soloed on. The perception was
that the big twin was special, and needed to be looked after, protected from low
time pilots.

The problem was that over the years the glass ship accumulated so many rules and
so much caution about it's use that it became so onerous to fly that people
stopped. It became a holy cow of a hangar queen that did not cover it's
insurance let alone the depreciation cost.

So - a little advice. If you find an asset not being used, look at the
procedures relating to it's use. Low time solo pilots should be safe in
something like an Apis - encourage them to fly it.

Funny thing is that when we changed the rule and made it standard procedure to
drag the hangar queen to the launch point every day - and lightened up a little
on the restrictions - it gets flown.

wrote:
>
> As several others have commented my take would also be that the
> motivation level of club members to get in the air and enjoy soaring
> is not as high as it could be. I do believe that ready rigged gliders
> are helpful, but at our club I can tell you that everyone of the
> privately owned gliders has to be rigged each flying day and they are
> enthusiastically . Sometimes one or other of the club gliders ( all
> are assembled and in the hangar ) might not get taken out to the field
> for flying ! The trainers usually are well used but the single seaters
> are very poorly used, in fact we are selling one as we can't justify
> having two .
> Well done to the instructors who keep the enthusiasm level up with
> students but shame on the rest of us for not encouraging and pushing
> the post solo pilots into setting some goals like badge flying to help
> them discover the FUN of leaving the field and cross country flying.
> Over the years I have become convinced that one of the biggest dangers
> for a club is to not spend time on encouraging new pilots and members
> to seek improvements in their flying abilities.
> Some ideas that have worked, and are aimed at better morale include:
>
> * Encouraging Badge flying .
> * Club boards posted in the hangar each new year for pilots to write
> up good flights ( Best altitude , Best distance , Best
> duration ,etc )
> * Regular club contests ( modest cross country tasks , spot
> landings ,etc )
> * Taking new pilots on cross coutry flights in 2 seaters .
>
> It might be worth considering a club member or two taking
> responsibility for trying to promote some of these activities and
> remember it's the next generation of soaring pilots that need to be
> targetted . Good Luck.
>
> Ron Clarke.
>
>
>
>

[noel.wade]

On Jan 11, 10:54*am, Bruce > wrote:
> So - a little advice. If you find an asset not being used, look at the
> procedures relating to it's use. *Low time solo pilots should be safe in
> something like an Apis - encourage them to fly it.
>
> Funny thing is that when we changed the rule and made it standard procedure to
> drag the hangar queen to the launch point every day - and lightened up a little
> on the restrictions - it gets flown.

Thanks, Bruce!

Yes I've always had the opinion that our time-limits on club gliders
was a discouraging factor.

For our Apis, I think the flaps make the senior members overly
cautious (but AFAIK we could just tell low-time pilots to leave the
flaps in the 0 position and they'd be fine). Also, the rules require
10 solo flights in the unpopular 1-36 before being able to fly the
Apis... Students go from a very solid-handling L-13 to a very poor-
handling 1-36 (twitchy in pitch, sluggish in roll) - and I think they
tend to like the feel of the L-13 better, so they are more likely to
go back to it, instead of progressing to the Apis or Astir or L-33.

Take care,

--Noel

[Mike Schumann]

Any idea what the cost of these hangers was?

Mike Schumann

"John Galloway" > wrote in message
...
> At 19:42 10 January 2008, Mike Schumann wrote:
>>Not only can you do damage to the glider when rigging
>>and derigging, but
>>there have been numerous accidents resulting from rigging
>>errors, quite a
>>few of which were fatal.
>>
>>If you have the luxury of hangers, you end up with
>>an inherently safer
>>operation. Not to mention the obvious advantages of
>>time and effort that
>>become more important as we age.
>>
>>It would be really helpful if we could get one of the
>>companies marketing
>>steel hangers to come up with a standard glider hanger
>>design so that
>>interested clubs would be able to order economical
>>hanger kits that they can
>>either self build, or have erected by a local contractor.
>>
>>Mike Schumann
>>
>
>
>
> I could put interested parties in touch with the designer
> of the Scottish Gliding Union hangar and you could
> adopt a proven design. It would be hard to come up
> with a more space and material efficient design. There
> is another one being constructed at an English club
> and a second one is being planned for Portmoak making
> 3 in total. The second Portmoak hangar will probably
> have minor changes to the roof height and pitch to
> cater for high dihedral wingletted gliders like the
> V 2cxT and D2cT. There will also be a gravel floor
> rather then the mix in the original hangar and also
> detail changes to the door runners.
>
> The design is based around bays suitable for 18m gliders
> although, because the two rows of gliders are necessarily
> offset, there is one smaller 15m bay and one larger
> bay (for Duos) etc at each end of the hangar.
>
> The second SGU hangar will be entirely financed by
> individual and syndicate private glider owners but
> owned by the club. (All the club gliders are already
> housed in the first hangar) The investors will get
> 16 years free hangarage and trailer parking before
> having to pay for their hangar bay. Within that period
> they will have the right sell the residual time in
> that bay at whatever price they can get for it. A
> similar financial model might interest other clubs.
>
> John Galloway
>
>
>
>
>
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Cats wrote:
> On Jan 11, 1:33 pm, Martin Gregorie >
> wrote:
> <snip>
>> There are or were about 4 Juniors in the USA. Williams Soaring had one
>> in which I flew in 2001. It was the nicest Junior I've seen: in
>> excellent condition and retro-fitted with a hydraulic brake which
>> actually worked without binding. The brake activation was by applying
>> full air brake rather than the usual lever on the front of the air brake
>> handle.
>
> That would be nice. Wish my glider could have that!
>
You've got the brake lever on the stick same as a Libelle, haven't you?

That works for me. The one snag with the air brake deployment with a
tail dragger is when you're going for a short field landing on wet
grass. If the wheel is locked when you touch down a variety of
interesting things might happen including but not limited to sliding
into the far hedge. One of our Discii nearly got totaled in similar
circumstances - very wet field, pilot landing toward hard things, hit
the brake and locked up the wheel which caused it to aquaplane.

The Williams Junior was operated off a hard runway, so this wasn't an
issue. In any case, as I'm sure you know, standard Junior brakes are
digital - either they don't work at all or they drag when off and stand
it on its nose when used. The brake lever on air brake handle is a bit
awkward too. Not that this bothers me - I think I've used them about
twice in well over 50 landings: properly held off they don't run far at all.

Mainly it was nice to fly a Junior with a good, progressive wheel brake.


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

[John Galloway[_1_]]

Mike,

Provisional estimate for the planned second hangar
is around £9-£10,000 sterling per glider bay depending
on the amount of voluntary work for non-skilled tasks.

John


At 21:30 11 January 2008, Mike Schumann wrote:
>Any idea what the cost of these hangers was?
>
>Mike Schumann
>
>'John Galloway' wrote in message
...
>> At 19:42 10 January 2008, Mike Schumann wrote:
>>>Not only can you do damage to the glider when rigging
>>>and derigging, but
>>>there have been numerous accidents resulting from rigging
>>>errors, quite a
>>>few of which were fatal.
>>>
>>>If you have the luxury of hangers, you end up with
>>>an inherently safer
>>>operation. Not to mention the obvious advantages of
>>>time and effort that
>>>become more important as we age.
>>>
>>>It would be really helpful if we could get one of the
>>>companies marketing
>>>steel hangers to come up with a standard glider hanger
>>>design so that
>>>interested clubs would be able to order economical
>>>hanger kits that they can
>>>either self build, or have erected by a local contractor.
>>>
>>>Mike Schumann
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I could put interested parties in touch with the designer
>> of the Scottish Gliding Union hangar and you could
>> adopt a proven design. It would be hard to come up
>> with a more space and material efficient design.
>>There
>> is another one being constructed at an English club
>> and a second one is being planned for Portmoak making
>> 3 in total. The second Portmoak hangar will probably
>> have minor changes to the roof height and pitch to
>> cater for high dihedral wingletted gliders like the
>> V 2cxT and D2cT. There will also be a gravel floor
>> rather then the mix in the original hangar and also
>> detail changes to the door runners.
>>
>> The design is based around bays suitable for 18m gliders
>> although, because the two rows of gliders are necessarily
>> offset, there is one smaller 15m bay and one larger
>> bay (for Duos) etc at each end of the hangar.
>>
>> The second SGU hangar will be entirely financed by
>> individual and syndicate private glider owners but
>> owned by the club. (All the club gliders are already
>> housed in the first hangar) The investors will get
>> 16 years free hangarage and trailer parking before
>> having to pay for their hangar bay. Within that period
>> they will have the right sell the residual time in
>> that bay at whatever price they can get for it. A
>> similar financial model might interest other clubs.
>>
>> John Galloway
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
>

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

noel.wade wrote:
> On Jan 11, 10:54 am, Bruce > wrote:
>> So - a little advice. If you find an asset not being used, look at the
>> procedures relating to it's use. Low time solo pilots should be safe in
>> something like an Apis - encourage them to fly it.
>>
>> Funny thing is that when we changed the rule and made it standard procedure to
>> drag the hangar queen to the launch point every day - and lightened up a little
>> on the restrictions - it gets flown.
>
> Thanks, Bruce!
>
<Snip...>
>
> For our Apis, I think the flaps make the senior members overly
> cautious (but AFAIK we could just tell low-time pilots to leave the
> flaps in the 0 position and they'd be fine).
<Snip...>
>
> --Noel
>
Hi Noel,

Sounds as if we're in agreement on this particular aspect of glider
'complexity' but I thought I'd use this as an opportunity to interject a
viewpoint that (to me!) seems obvious, yet based on your
comment/observation above, and my own experiences...*isn't*!!!

The anal part of me occasionally would like to know exactly how many
times I've heard the following 2 positions (usually in opposition to
some sort of proposed fleet change in a club) espoused (with varying
degrees of vehemence):
1) flaps (not the landing kind, merely the camber-changing efficiency
kind) are definitionally 'too complex' to even be considered as a new
club ship, and...
2) ditto retractable landing gear.

Color me bemused.

If I'm Joe Instructor (which I'm not), I'd be seeking to convey those
seeking my input, how to use their in-flight brains critically, and not
simply 'rotely.' IMHO, camber-changing flaps and retractable gear to me
are platter-served superb teaching and skill-expanding devices. (It's
left as an exercise for the reader to reconcile 'skill-expanding' with
'safety-enhancing'...)

On my question list for wannabe transitionees (I was one, once, & I
asked myself these same questions) are:
a) why mess with the flaps at all?
b) why mess with the gear at all?

I'd expect decent comprehensive replies - probably coming only after an
extended conversation about these aspects - before I'd be comfortable
saying, "Have at it!"

Flying nothing but (large-deflection-for-landing) flapped and
retractable geared ships since transitioning from a 1-26, I recognize
it's human nature to want to fiddle with new stuff (i.e. camber-changing
flaps and retractable gear). I further readily acknowledge some ships
definitely benefit from negative flaps at the outset of takeoff rolls,
and that retract gears are (arguably) less strong than fixed gears.

Those things noted, understand that neither of my first two flapped
ships *had* negative flap options. I'd further point out that most (not
all) poor landings sufficiently hard as to damage retract gear
mechanisms, are so violent as to simultaneously risk damaging fixed gear
support structures. But to the point of human nature, clearly it's not
going to change....but - IMHO - some of its more obviously off-the-wall
impulses easily fall within the purview of sensible instruction. If I
seriously thought my glider club mostly consisted of members so
off-the-wall as to not be able to resist reasoned injunctions against
not messing with flaps or gear until higher priority flight control and
safety issues associated with transitioning to a new single-seat club
ship had become second-nature to them, then I, too, would vote against
acquiring flapped, retractable single-seaters. Happily, I've never seen
such a club.

Regards,
Bob - soapbox now stored - W.

[Bruce]

Similarly, landing on a hard (tar) runway with the wheel locked will give the
pilot the opportunity to purchase one of those expensive white stripes.

On many single seaters if the pilot lets the nose touch the tar no amount of
back on the stick is going to help till there is a significant amount of speed
and gell coat reduction.

Martin Gregorie wrote:
> Cats wrote:
>> On Jan 11, 1:33 pm, Martin Gregorie >
>> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> There are or were about 4 Juniors in the USA. Williams Soaring had one
>>> in which I flew in 2001. It was the nicest Junior I've seen: in
>>> excellent condition and retro-fitted with a hydraulic brake which
>>> actually worked without binding. The brake activation was by applying
>>> full air brake rather than the usual lever on the front of the air brake
>>> handle.
>>
>> That would be nice. Wish my glider could have that!
>>
> You've got the brake lever on the stick same as a Libelle, haven't you?
>
> That works for me. The one snag with the air brake deployment with a
> tail dragger is when you're going for a short field landing on wet
> grass. If the wheel is locked when you touch down a variety of
> interesting things might happen including but not limited to sliding
> into the far hedge. One of our Discii nearly got totaled in similar
> circumstances - very wet field, pilot landing toward hard things, hit
> the brake and locked up the wheel which caused it to aquaplane.
>
> The Williams Junior was operated off a hard runway, so this wasn't an
> issue. In any case, as I'm sure you know, standard Junior brakes are
> digital - either they don't work at all or they drag when off and stand
> it on its nose when used. The brake lever on air brake handle is a bit
> awkward too. Not that this bothers me - I think I've used them about
> twice in well over 50 landings: properly held off they don't run far at
> all.
>
> Mainly it was nice to fly a Junior with a good, progressive wheel brake.
>
>

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Bob Whelan wrote:
> The anal part of me occasionally would like to know exactly how many
> times I've heard the following 2 positions (usually in opposition to
> some sort of proposed fleet change in a club) espoused (with varying
> degrees of vehemence):
> 1) flaps (not the landing kind, merely the camber-changing efficiency
> kind) are definitionally 'too complex' to even be considered as a new
> club ship, and...
> 2) ditto retractable landing gear.
>
Related comment.

Today I was chatting with a pretty experienced instructor who has
specialized in air experience and early instruction of young people
(Scouts, etc) in a variety of aircraft: Rotax Falke, DG-500T, Blanik
L-13. We were discussing the L-13, which I've never flown, and he was
saying that both its retract gear, which you can safely land on when its
up, and its flaps, which he thought were pretty ineffective, are made
the way they are and fitted specifically to give student pilots
experience flying a glider with retracts and flaps.

One solution would seem to be to use an L-13 or L-23 for pre-conversion
training.

From my experience of converting to an ASW-20 (read the POH a few
times, get in and take an aero tow), I'd have appreciated a flight or
two in an L-13 or DG500/22 first. My club doesn't own any flapped duals
and the only private ones on site are big-wings.


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

[Markus Gayda]

In our club there is also the "holy flapped cow" - a Mini-Nimbus.

I myself found the transition from the LS1-c to the Mini-Nimbus to be more or
less a non-issue. First takeoff was using the winch and i loved the glider from
the first circle onwards...

Now they require you to:
- get checked out on the JanusB of our neighbours club
- get at least 3 solo flights with the Janus

IMHO that is total crap.
A Janus has nothing in common with a Mini-Nimbus...
One is a big ugly MoFo :-) the other a nice little racer.

Flaps are IMHO just a different kind of trim - use them and be happy!
(Same goes for the other flapped ships i have flown - of which i only rate the
ASH25 as a glider that needs you to train a bit to uses it good - DG500, ASW20
etc were all nice and easy to fly).

just my 2cents
Greetings
Markus

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Markus Gayda wrote:
>
> Flaps are IMHO just a different kind of trim - use them and be happy!
> (Same goes for the other flapped ships i have flown - of which i only
> rate the ASH25 as a glider that needs you to train a bit to uses it good
> - DG500, ASW20 etc were all nice and easy to fly).
>
I'd agree that the '20 was fairly easy to fly, but there was still the
big gulp over the flap change midway through the ground roll and that
first flapped landing. Some previous flap experience in a dual would
have reduced the size of that gulp.

I certainly got launches and landings nailed quite a while before I
mastered the "always in the right flap without thinking about it" trick.


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