New trainer from SZD Bielsko

SZD Bielsko is in the final phase of testing of "new" 2 seat glider
designed for initial and advanced training. It will be fully aerobatic
with 17.5 m wings and with 20 m wings it becomes pretty good x-c
sailplane with L/D of 41.8. The reason I am saying "new" with
quotation marks is that the glider was designed in the late 80-ties
and bears name SZD 54 Perkoz. But the SZD Bielsko is working right now
to bring the glider into production.
http://www.szd.com.pl/pdf/szd-54_perkoz_doku_en.pdf

Jacek
Washington State

Beautiful! I love a one piece canopy. We need more trainers like this.

The only small thing I see from the pictures that might concern me is the
external mass ballances on the elevator. Many glilder fields are less than
perfectly clear of debris. It looks as if it might be possible a chunk of
that debris (or a unused tow rope) might get lodged between the stabilizer
and the mass balance horn on the takeoff roll. This has happened on older
gliders.

If there's still time in the development phase for these mass ballances to
be internalized, doing so might improve the glider's marketability.

Bill Daniels


wrote in message
oups.com...
SZD Bielsko is in the final phase of testing of "new" 2 seat glider
designed for initial and advanced training. It will be fully aerobatic
with 17.5 m wings and with 20 m wings it becomes pretty good x-c
sailplane with L/D of 41.8. The reason I am saying "new" with
quotation marks is that the glider was designed in the late 80-ties
and bears name SZD 54 Perkoz. But the SZD Bielsko is working right now
to bring the glider into production.
http://www.szd.com.pl/pdf/szd-54_perkoz_doku_en.pdf

Jacek
Washington State

N9439G is registered in Las Vegas, NV.

On Jun 20, 8:12 pm, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:
Beautiful! I love a one piece canopy. We need more trainers like this.

The only small thing I see from the pictures that might concern me is the
external mass ballances on the elevator. Many glilder fields are less than
perfectly clear of debris. It looks as if it might be possible a chunk of
that debris (or a unused tow rope) might get lodged between the stabilizer
and the mass balance horn on the takeoff roll. This has happened on older
gliders.

If there's still time in the development phase for these mass ballances to
be internalized, doing so might improve the glider's marketability.

Bill Daniels

wrote in message

oups.com...

SZD Bielsko is in the final phase of testing of "new" 2 seat glider
designed for initial and advanced training. It will be fully aerobatic
with 17.5 m wings and with 20 m wings it becomes pretty good x-c
sailplane with L/D of 41.8. The reason I am saying "new" with
quotation marks is that the glider was designed in the late 80-ties
and bears name SZD 54 Perkoz. But the SZD Bielsko is working right now
to bring the glider into production.
http://www.szd.com.pl/pdf/szd-54_perkoz_doku_en.pdf

Jacek
Washington State

What i dont get is why someone would want to build an old type of glider.
Why not update the profile and give us DuoDiscus performance? (or DG1000)
While 41:1 certainly sounds nice it is nowhere near the performance of a modern
20m ship.
For the same reason i would never again buy a ASK21 for our club. Too expensive
for its performance.

The production of the glider would cost just the same. And i guess the
certification work will have to be done anyway on this "new" type.

Very strange business decision for me

CU
Markus

schrieb:
SZD Bielsko is in the final phase of testing of "new" 2 seat glider
designed for initial and advanced training. It will be fully aerobatic
with 17.5 m wings and with 20 m wings it becomes pretty good x-c
sailplane with L/D of 41.8. The reason I am saying "new" with
quotation marks is that the glider was designed in the late 80-ties
and bears name SZD 54 Perkoz. But the SZD Bielsko is working right now
to bring the glider into production.
http://www.szd.com.pl/pdf/szd-54_perkoz_doku_en.pdf

Jacek
Washington State

On Jun 21, 10:26 am, Markus Gayda wrote:
What i dont get is why someone would want to build an old type of glider.
Why not update the profile and give us DuoDiscus performance? (or DG1000)
While 41:1 certainly sounds nice it is nowhere near the performance of a modern
20m ship.

Because it's too expensive. The R&D and computer time required to make
developing new profiles and fuselage-wing junctions etc. worthwhile is
immense.

For the same reason i would never again buy a ASK21 for our club. Too expensive
for its performance.

The K21 isn't built for performance, though it goes XC very well and
better than a lot of people think. (It's also much more representative
of the performance of what a new XC pilot is likely to end up flying.)
It's built to be the ultimate trainer - which it is, apart the
slightly unfortunate design requirement of being as spin-resistant as
possible.


Dan

Having been responsible for the maintenance of a 4 Puchacz trainer
fleet for some years and noticing that the fuselage is a Puchacz
fuselage I hope they get the following bits sorted out before
production.

1. They bungy sprung main undercarriage is awful. The Polish bungies
last half a season. American ones last two seasons but are quite
expensive and the design means that all the bronze pivot bushes are
heavily loaded all the time and wear rapidly.

2. The spring cable reel that retains the canopy when open brakes
every year and the glider is dangerous until it is fixed (the cable
when not retracted can lasso the rear stick.

3. All the Polish wheels need replacing with Tost or Cleverland. The
main wheel needs a disk brake. The bearing and brake arrangement on
the Polish wheels is very difficult to maintain.

4. The plastic gears in the wing route used to operate the airbrakes
cause a lot of backlash in the airbrake mechanism. They didn't work
well in the Puchacz, Bocian, Jantar etc. Its time to change the
airbrake mechanism.

5. The cables that operate the trim tabs in the elevator are single
strand and not spring tempered. They are routed through the elevator
hinge line and are flexed every time the elevator is moved. The
factory ones fail every year. (replacements from the local model shop
last several years but of course aren't approved).

The Puchacz was almost a good trainer, let down by serviceability
issues and being slightly too easy to spin. The Perkoz could be good
if they would just fix the above.


On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:00:29 -0700,
wrote:

SZD Bielsko is in the final phase of testing of "new" 2 seat glider
designed for initial and advanced training. It will be fully aerobatic
with 17.5 m wings and with 20 m wings it becomes pretty good x-c
sailplane with L/D of 41.8. The reason I am saying "new" with
quotation marks is that the glider was designed in the late 80-ties
and bears name SZD 54 Perkoz. But the SZD Bielsko is working right now
to bring the glider into production.
http://www.szd.com.pl/pdf/szd-54_perkoz_doku_en.pdf

Jacek
Washington State


On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:00:29 -0700,
wrote:

SZD Bielsko is in the final phase of testing of "new" 2 seat glider
designed for initial and advanced training. It will be fully aerobatic
with 17.5 m wings and with 20 m wings it becomes pretty good x-c
sailplane with L/D of 41.8. The reason I am saying "new" with
quotation marks is that the glider was designed in the late 80-ties
and bears name SZD 54 Perkoz. But the SZD Bielsko is working right now
to bring the glider into production.
http://www.szd.com.pl/pdf/szd-54_perkoz_doku_en.pdf

Jacek
Washington State

for a trainer 40:1 is plenty. heck 18:1 is plenty, as proven by the
multitudes of pilots trained in 2-22 and 2-33 Schweizers over the
years. We're not talking about an open class nationals competitor
here.

This comment is solely about trainer L/D and not this specific trainer.

L/D IS important especially if you operate from a field where nearby
landings are hazardous. Students ( and for that matter some instructors)
aren't good at judging just how far they can glide. In this situation,
extra performance is what gets them home after a mis-judgement. L/D then
becomes a safety factor.

There's no downside to training in higher performance unless the instructor
THINKS there is. If the instructor is afraid of high performance gliders,
he will pass that fear on to his students.

Bill Daniels

wrote in message
ups.com...
for a trainer 40:1 is plenty. heck 18:1 is plenty, as proven by the
multitudes of pilots trained in 2-22 and 2-33 Schweizers over the
years. We're not talking about an open class nationals competitor
here.

On Jun 21, 8:30 am, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:
This comment is solely about trainer L/D and not this specific trainer.

L/D IS important especially if you operate from a field where nearby
landings are hazardous. Students ( and for that matter some instructors)
aren't good at judging just how far they can glide. In this situation,
extra performance is what gets them home after a mis-judgement. L/D then
becomes a safety factor.

There's no downside to training in higher performance unless the instructor
THINKS there is. If the instructor is afraid of high performance gliders,
he will pass that fear on to his students.

Bill Daniels

wrote in message

ups.com...



for a trainer 40:1 is plenty. heck 18:1 is plenty, as proven by the
multitudes of pilots trained in 2-22 and 2-33 Schweizers over the
years. We're not talking about an open class nationals competitor
here.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

true Bill. as usual you got it right. with the flat fields to the
horizon in central Iowa ive never had to worry about those issues you
have to deal with teaching in Colorado.

In my experience 'low maintenance' and 'robust' are more important
characteristics in an ab-initio trainer than 'high L/D ratio'.

IMHO trainers are all about compromises, the ASK21 is a very good compromise.
You CAN get a trainer with 44:1 - But you will pay in price, ground handling
and hangar space - to mention only a few. Why does Lasham have a fleet of K13s?

Now if there was a way to get any glass installed as trainer at my club... We
fly vintage Bergfalkes, and a Blanik because they are robust, repairable and
cheap - not because of their L/D (all 30:1) or their control harmony, or
aerobatic capability. Although the L13 is a great aerobatic trainer.

My primary concern with the Puchacz/Perkoz design would be the big canopy frame
obstructing the back seat pilot's vision. Never flown either, but it looks
substantial, and right in the field of vision.

If the list of woes below is accurate the Pooch would make a poor trainer. Fails
the low maintenance test.

Cheers
Bruce

Basil wrote:
Having been responsible for the maintenance of a 4 Puchacz trainer
fleet for some years and noticing that the fuselage is a Puchacz
fuselage I hope they get the following bits sorted out before
production.

1. They bungy sprung main undercarriage is awful. The Polish bungies
last half a season. American ones last two seasons but are quite
expensive and the design means that all the bronze pivot bushes are
heavily loaded all the time and wear rapidly.

2. The spring cable reel that retains the canopy when open brakes
every year and the glider is dangerous until it is fixed (the cable
when not retracted can lasso the rear stick.

3. All the Polish wheels need replacing with Tost or Cleverland. The
main wheel needs a disk brake. The bearing and brake arrangement on
the Polish wheels is very difficult to maintain.

4. The plastic gears in the wing route used to operate the airbrakes
cause a lot of backlash in the airbrake mechanism. They didn't work
well in the Puchacz, Bocian, Jantar etc. Its time to change the
airbrake mechanism.

5. The cables that operate the trim tabs in the elevator are single
strand and not spring tempered. They are routed through the elevator
hinge line and are flexed every time the elevator is moved. The
factory ones fail every year. (replacements from the local model shop
last several years but of course aren't approved).

The Puchacz was almost a good trainer, let down by serviceability
issues and being slightly too easy to spin. The Perkoz could be good
if they would just fix the above.


On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:00:29 -0700,
wrote:

SZD Bielsko is in the final phase of testing of "new" 2 seat glider
designed for initial and advanced training. It will be fully aerobatic
with 17.5 m wings and with 20 m wings it becomes pretty good x-c
sailplane with L/D of 41.8. The reason I am saying "new" with
quotation marks is that the glider was designed in the late 80-ties
and bears name SZD 54 Perkoz. But the SZD Bielsko is working right now
to bring the glider into production.
http://www.szd.com.pl/pdf/szd-54_perkoz_doku_en.pdf

Jacek
Washington State


On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:00:29 -0700,
wrote:

SZD Bielsko is in the final phase of testing of "new" 2 seat glider
designed for initial and advanced training. It will be fully aerobatic
with 17.5 m wings and with 20 m wings it becomes pretty good x-c
sailplane with L/D of 41.8. The reason I am saying "new" with
quotation marks is that the glider was designed in the late 80-ties
and bears name SZD 54 Perkoz. But the SZD Bielsko is working right now
to bring the glider into production.
http://www.szd.com.pl/pdf/szd-54_perkoz_doku_en.pdf

Jacek
Washington State