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...aring/200708/1