Surfer! wrote:

Here we go again, the recurring 2-33 "religious" argument. :-) For the
record, I learned in a 2-33 and it's not my favorite trainer.


"JS" wrote in message
...
The one redeeming quality of the 2-33 "Dragmaster" is that it laughs
at anything roughly resembling a landing.

However I suspect there could be a substantial amount of retraining
required to fly other more slippery ships...


And hence my main problem with the 2-33. The 2-33 will tolerate
sloppiness and abuse that no other glider will let you get away with.
I prefer to instruct in a glider that handles more like the ship that
the student will transition into. It may take a bit longer, but that's
OK. Retraining takes a long time and the learning "law of primacy"
dictates that when the stuff hits the fan, pilots will revert to what
they learned first.

What else is wrong with the 2-33? An incomplete list would include
- not enough leg room in either seat. I hate turning with
the stick *under* my knee.
- lethargic roll rate.
- Poor visibility from the rear seat - teaching someone to
soar in a gaggle is scary.
- ineffective trim - unless the front seater is heavy, you're
still applying significant forward stick pressure on tow even
with full forward trim.
- ineffective spoilers (but it does slip GREAT!).
- generally poor ergonomics.
- doesn't spin well.

What's good about the 2-33:
- it's cheap
- anybody can repair it
- it's built like a tank. If a student is going to crash, I want
him to be in a 2-33.
- doesn't spin well (yeah, I know).

Sex does sell..... the sport, I mean. :-) Sure many of us would have
started soaring a manhole cover, if that were possible. But for others,
who have an inkling and come to the field to see what it's like, the
2-33 is not a good sales tool.

That said, some people simply prefer the 2-33 and I'm OK with that. For
2 seaters, my club has 3 L23s, 1 Puchacz, and 1 2-33. If a student wants
to fly the 2-33, I'll be in the back seat.

Tony V. "6N"