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