Opinions on fleet replacement strategies.

I have been involved in discussions at a couple of clubs looking at the
inevitable replacement of wood and fabric trainers.

There are many, often polarised views on subjects like:
Whether we should ever plan on replacing the K13
Whether Scheibe Bergfalkes are worth keeping.
The "XYZ" trainer is a bit of a pig to fly, but it IS paid for and will probably
last another 10 years so why worry.
Will we be able to get anything for them if we want to sell them in five years.
Whether there is anything available that has the necessary characteristics:
Low airframe weight - we have to winch launch this.
Reasonable performance.
Good control harmonisation for training.
Robust enough for rough airfields and winch launching.

So then we start thinking of what can we replace it with:

Whether a Grob G103 is any use as a trainer - it is so heavy, and the older
versions have far from perfect control responses.
Whether the K21 is the best option - again too heavy, and too expensive.
Whether the PW6 is the answer - again, a bit heavy and a bit expensive new, and
too new to be available second hand at reasonable prices.
Whether the TST-14 might not be a bad idea - it is certainly dimensionally
correct, and the weight and price looks good. So am I too cynical wondering
about the catch...
The DG500s look great except for that empty weight - that would not work on a
short winch runway.
Whether all metal aircraft like the L23 and Peregrine should even be considered,
given that we have no metal maintenance skills available.
The Scheibe SF34 / Alliance 34 looks on paper about right, but there are few
complimentary comments about them . Why is this design unpopular.


General opinion appears to be that:
The Scheibes are already worthless - you can only get their instruments value.
(They are advertised at 2500 Euro)
The K13s are starting to go the same way as maintenance climbs and age starts to
creep up.(look at the number on offer - and the prices)
Metal is not practical.
Composite seems to be going inexorably in the "more" direction
More span, weight and cost than we can reasonably invest in.

So we have a dilemma -

We have to find something that we can afford, that is
1] good for training.
2] does not break winch cables the whole time.
3] is possible to make a financial case for in clubs that have 15-20 active members.
4] Has good enough ground handling (wingspan, total weight and general balance)
that it does not become a hangar queen.

Maybe it is not possible, and I know I have left a number of fine aircraft out
of both sides of the argument. Fact is we will need to replace at least three
trainers in the next five years, and there are no obvious candidates.

Any thoughts on what we should do here? Other than start saving...

Bruce,

Have you considered the side-by-side two seater 'Taurus'?

http://www.mcp.com.au/pipistrel-usa/models/taurus.html

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina

At 13:06 16 June 2006, Bruce Greef wrote:
I have been involved in discussions at a couple of
clubs looking at the
inevitable replacement of wood and fabric trainers.

There are many, often polarised views on subjects like:
Whether we should ever plan on replacing the K13
Whether Scheibe Bergfalkes are worth keeping.
The 'XYZ' trainer is a bit of a pig to fly, but it
IS paid for and will probably
last another 10 years so why worry.
Will we be able to get anything for them if we want
to sell them in five years.
Whether there is anything available that has the necessary
characteristics:
Low airframe weight - we have to winch launch this.
Reasonable performance.
Good control harmonisation for training.
Robust enough for rough airfields and winch launching.

So then we start thinking of what can we replace it
with:

Whether a Grob G103 is any use as a trainer - it is
so heavy, and the older
versions have far from perfect control responses.
Whether the K21 is the best option - again too heavy,
and too expensive.
Whether the PW6 is the answer - again, a bit heavy
and a bit expensive new, and
too new to be available second hand at reasonable prices.
Whether the TST-14 might not be a bad idea - it is
certainly dimensionally
correct, and the weight and price looks good. So am
I too cynical wondering
about the catch...
The DG500s look great except for that empty weight
- that would not work on a
short winch runway.
Whether all metal aircraft like the L23 and Peregrine
should even be considered,
given that we have no metal maintenance skills available.
The Scheibe SF34 / Alliance 34 looks on paper about
right, but there are few
complimentary comments about them . Why is this design
unpopular.


General opinion appears to be that:
The Scheibes are already worthless - you can only get
their instruments value.
(They are advertised at 2500 Euro)
The K13s are starting to go the same way as maintenance
climbs and age starts to
creep up.(look at the number on offer - and the prices)
Metal is not practical.
Composite seems to be going inexorably in the 'more'
direction
More span, weight and cost than we can reasonably invest
in.

So we have a dilemma -

We have to find something that we can afford, that
is
1] good for training.
2] does not break winch cables the whole time.
3] is possible to make a financial case for in clubs
that have 15-20 active members.
4] Has good enough ground handling (wingspan, total
weight and general balance)
that it does not become a hangar queen.

Maybe it is not possible, and I know I have left a
number of fine aircraft out
of both sides of the argument. Fact is we will need
to replace at least three
trainers in the next five years, and there are no obvious
candidates.

Any thoughts on what we should do here? Other than
start saving...

Ray Lovinggood wrote:
Bruce,

Have you considered the side-by-side two seater 'Taurus'?

http://www.mcp.com.au/pipistrel-usa/models/taurus.html

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina

At 13:06 16 June 2006, Bruce Greef wrote:

I have been involved in discussions at a couple of
clubs looking at the
inevitable replacement of wood and fabric trainers.

There are many, often polarised views on subjects like:
Whether we should ever plan on replacing the K13
Whether Scheibe Bergfalkes are worth keeping.
The 'XYZ' trainer is a bit of a pig to fly, but it
IS paid for and will probably
last another 10 years so why worry.
Will we be able to get anything for them if we want
to sell them in five years.
Whether there is anything available that has the necessary
characteristics:
Low airframe weight - we have to winch launch this.
Reasonable performance.
Good control harmonisation for training.
Robust enough for rough airfields and winch launching.

So then we start thinking of what can we replace it
with:

Whether a Grob G103 is any use as a trainer - it is
so heavy, and the older
versions have far from perfect control responses.
Whether the K21 is the best option - again too heavy,
and too expensive.
Whether the PW6 is the answer - again, a bit heavy
and a bit expensive new, and
too new to be available second hand at reasonable prices.
Whether the TST-14 might not be a bad idea - it is
certainly dimensionally
correct, and the weight and price looks good. So am
I too cynical wondering
about the catch...
The DG500s look great except for that empty weight
- that would not work on a
short winch runway.
Whether all metal aircraft like the L23 and Peregrine
should even be considered,
given that we have no metal maintenance skills available.
The Scheibe SF34 / Alliance 34 looks on paper about
right, but there are few
complimentary comments about them . Why is this design
unpopular.


General opinion appears to be that:
The Scheibes are already worthless - you can only get
their instruments value.
(They are advertised at 2500 Euro)
The K13s are starting to go the same way as maintenance
climbs and age starts to
creep up.(look at the number on offer - and the prices)
Metal is not practical.
Composite seems to be going inexorably in the 'more'
direction
More span, weight and cost than we can reasonably invest
in.

So we have a dilemma -

We have to find something that we can afford, that
is
1] good for training.
2] does not break winch cables the whole time.
3] is possible to make a financial case for in clubs
that have 15-20 active members.
4] Has good enough ground handling (wingspan, total
weight and general balance)
that it does not become a hangar queen.

Maybe it is not possible, and I know I have left a
number of fine aircraft out
of both sides of the argument. Fact is we will need
to replace at least three
trainers in the next five years, and there are no obvious
candidates.

Any thoughts on what we should do here? Other than
start saving...







Hi Ray

AS I said I have left many fine options out - and only quoted the main threads
of the club discussions.

I think the Taurus is perfect, and have gone so far as to investigate the cost
and waiting list for delivery as a personal toy. But for a club plane the price
is a deterrent, at 91,000 Euros - versus the TST-14 at 54,000... (Personal
strategy for ownership of one includes winning the lottery)

Also, for winch launching we would prefer minimum weight. I don't know if these
are cleared for assisted launch with the engine running. If this was possible
and safe it would make a difference in some areas.

Self launch might be marginal - both fields are around 5,000" MSL and grass not
tar surface. In both cases the options if the engine quits on take off are less
than plentiful.

wrote:
Bruce Greef wrote:

I have been involved in discussions at a couple of clubs looking at the
inevitable replacement of wood and fabric trainers.

There are many, often polarised views on subjects like:
Whether we should ever plan on replacing the K13
Whether Scheibe Bergfalkes are worth keeping.
The "XYZ" trainer is a bit of a pig to fly, but it IS paid for and will probably
last another 10 years so why worry.
Will we be able to get anything for them if we want to sell them in five years.
Whether there is anything available that has the necessary characteristics:
Low airframe weight - we have to winch launch this.
Reasonable performance.
Good control harmonisation for training.
Robust enough for rough airfields and winch launching.

So then we start thinking of what can we replace it with:

Whether a Grob G103 is any use as a trainer - it is so heavy, and the older
versions have far from perfect control responses.
Whether the K21 is the best option - again too heavy, and too expensive.
Whether the PW6 is the answer - again, a bit heavy and a bit expensive new, and
too new to be available second hand at reasonable prices.
Whether the TST-14 might not be a bad idea - it is certainly dimensionally
correct, and the weight and price looks good. So am I too cynical wondering
about the catch...
The DG500s look great except for that empty weight - that would not work on a
short winch runway.
Whether all metal aircraft like the L23 and Peregrine should even be considered,
given that we have no metal maintenance skills available.
The Scheibe SF34 / Alliance 34 looks on paper about right, but there are few
complimentary comments about them . Why is this design unpopular.


General opinion appears to be that:
The Scheibes are already worthless - you can only get their instruments value.
(They are advertised at 2500 Euro)
The K13s are starting to go the same way as maintenance climbs and age starts to
creep up.(look at the number on offer - and the prices)
Metal is not practical.
Composite seems to be going inexorably in the "more" direction
More span, weight and cost than we can reasonably invest in.

So we have a dilemma -

We have to find something that we can afford, that is
1] good for training.
2] does not break winch cables the whole time.
3] is possible to make a financial case for in clubs that have 15-20 active members.
4] Has good enough ground handling (wingspan, total weight and general balance)
that it does not become a hangar queen.

Maybe it is not possible, and I know I have left a number of fine aircraft out
of both sides of the argument. Fact is we will need to replace at least three
trainers in the next five years, and there are no obvious candidates.

Any thoughts on what we should do here? Other than start saving...


Import a bunch of 2-33s from the US. Cheap, easy to groundhandle, hard
to break, easy to fix (steel tube/fabric/sheetmetal).

In fact, take all of them, please!

66

Hey Kirk

We have just the replacements for your 2-33s. I happen to have an inside track
on some pristine Bergfalkes. The younger one only has 11,000 hours on her...

also 66 (Std Cirrus)

What we really need is an updated higher performance
GRP version of the K13, with its easy ground handling,
one piece side hinged canopy for good visibility from
the cockpit, and safe handling and spinning characteristics.
Does such a beast exist? No of course it doesn't!

Derek Copeland

P.S. You can keep your 2-33's.

At 13:24 16 June 2006, wrote:

Bruce Greef wrote:
I have been involved in discussions at a couple of
clubs looking at the
inevitable replacement of wood and fabric trainers.

There are many, often polarised views on subjects
like:
Whether we should ever plan on replacing the K13
Whether Scheibe Bergfalkes are worth keeping.
The 'XYZ' trainer is a bit of a pig to fly, but it
IS paid for and will probably
last another 10 years so why worry.
Will we be able to get anything for them if we want
to sell them in five years.
Whether there is anything available that has the necessary
characteristics:
Low airframe weight - we have to winch launch this.
Reasonable performance.
Good control harmonisation for training.
Robust enough for rough airfields and winch launching.

So then we start thinking of what can we replace it
with:

Whether a Grob G103 is any use as a trainer - it is
so heavy, and the older
versions have far from perfect control responses.
Whether the K21 is the best option - again too heavy,
and too expensive.
Whether the PW6 is the answer - again, a bit heavy
and a bit expensive new, and
too new to be available second hand at reasonable
prices.
Whether the TST-14 might not be a bad idea - it is
certainly dimensionally
correct, and the weight and price looks good. So am
I too cynical wondering
about the catch...
The DG500s look great except for that empty weight
- that would not work on a
short winch runway.
Whether all metal aircraft like the L23 and Peregrine
should even be considered,
given that we have no metal maintenance skills available.
The Scheibe SF34 / Alliance 34 looks on paper about
right, but there are few
complimentary comments about them . Why is this design
unpopular.


General opinion appears to be that:
The Scheibes are already worthless - you can only
get their instruments value.
(They are advertised at The K13s are starting to
go the same way as maintenance climbs and age starts
to
creep up.(look at the number on offer - and the prices)
Metal is not practical.
Composite seems to be going inexorably in the 'more'
direction
More span, weight and cost than we can reasonably
invest in.

So we have a dilemma -

We have to find something that we can afford, that
is
1] good for training.
2] does not break winch cables the whole time.
3] is possible to make a financial case for in clubs
that have 15-20 active members.
4] Has good enough ground handling (wingspan, total
weight and general balance)
that it does not become a hangar queen.

Maybe it is not possible, and I know I have left a
number of fine aircraft out
of both sides of the argument. Fact is we will need
to replace at least three
trainers in the next five years, and there are no
obvious candidates.

Any thoughts on what we should do here? Other than
start saving...

Import a bunch of 2-33s from the US. Cheap, easy to
groundhandle, hard
to break, easy to fix (steel tube/fabric/sheetmetal).

In fact, take all of them, please!

66

I vote Scheibe SF34.

Easiest glass trainer to ground handle
Nice handling in the air.
35:1. (just slightly more than the Schweizer 2-33 Schweinflugel)
Great visibility from both seats.
Last I saw were reasonably priced.

But try finding one or more...

Jim

At 16:54 16 June 2006, Bruce Greef wrote:
Ray Lovinggood wrote:
Bruce,

Have you considered the side-by-side two seater 'Taurus'?

http://www.mcp.com.au/pipistrel-usa/models/taurus.html

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina
Hi Ray

AS I said I have left many fine options out - and only
quoted the main threads
of the club discussions.

I think the Taurus is perfect, and have gone so far
as to investigate the cost
and waiting list for delivery as a personal toy. But
for a club plane the price
is a deterrent, at 91,000 Euros - versus the TST-14
at 54,000... (Personal
strategy for ownership of one includes winning the
lottery)

Also, for winch launching we would prefer minimum weight.
I don't know if these
are cleared for assisted launch with the engine running.
If this was possible
and safe it would make a difference in some areas.

Self launch might be marginal - both fields are around
5,000' MSL and grass not
tar surface. In both cases the options if the engine
quits on take off are less
than plentiful.


Bruce,

I didn't know the price of either the Taurus or the
TsT-14. Wow.

Please let us know what works out. Our club will someday
need to replace our only two-seater, the Blanik L-13.

We don't have the restrictions you have, but cost is
always a BIG issue. Since our field elevation is 200
feet above sea level and we have a 5,000' paved runway
for aerotowing with a 180 h.p. Cessna 172, aircraft
weight isn't quite a problem for us as it is with you.
Yea, we probably wouldn't want a really heavy ship,
but boy, wouldn't a Duo or a DG-1000 look nice for
us! (Our state just instituted a lottery and I think
our members had better start playing it.)

Ray

Martin Gregorie wrote:
Bruce Greef wrote:


Whether the K21 is the best option - again too heavy, and too expensive.


If the K21 is too heavy, maybe you should consider throwing a bit of
money at the winch too - and/or consider a Puchacz. Its a lightly loaded
glider and relatively cheap to boot. I've been flying one a lot recently
and had forgotten how nice it is to fly and how good its air brakes are.
Its only real drawback is a rather narrow winching window - Vmw is 59 kts.

Winching: our Supacat has only a 240 hp Deutz diesel, but I've seen it
winch launch an ASH-25 several times.


Hi Martin

The winch has plenty power - but we have one runway that is only 1300m, stony
and uphill to boot. At the other location we have a less powerful winch (220Hp),
but 2000m to launch on. It is also hard stony ground though.

So - we use single strand wire, that does not like the heavy gliders. The Grob
103 Twin Astir is notorious for breaking the wire. Multistrand gets eroded too
quickly by the terrain. I don't know whether UHMWPE (Spectra/Dyneema) would be
any use on this - or would get cut up by the field.

Puchacz is a consideration. Although there are some reservations about it's
alleged propensity to occasionally resist spin recoveries, the primary reason
why the pooch is not on our shopping list is that very narrow winch speed window.

Bruce

Bruce Greef wrote:

Puchacz is a consideration. Although there are some reservations about it's
alleged propensity to occasionally resist spin recoveries,

That's true if it goes flat - I've see the video....

OTOH I've not heard of that happening during the normal training regime
of incipients and 1-2 turn spins.

The primary reason why the pooch is not on our shopping list is that very narrow
winch speed window.

Yes, that's understandable, though we don't have huge problems from
that. It would be interesting to hear from the Hus.Bos. crowd on this
point. Their training fleet was exclusively SZD up to 2004: 4 Puchacz
and 3 Juniors for post-solo training, though they now have 3 Puchacz and
a K-21.


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

"Bruce Greef" wrote in message
...

The winch has plenty power - but we have one runway that is only 1300m,
stony and uphill to boot. At the other location we have a less powerful
winch (220Hp), but 2000m to launch on. It is also hard stony ground
though.

So - we use single strand wire, that does not like the heavy gliders. The
Grob 103 Twin Astir is notorious for breaking the wire. Multistrand gets
eroded too quickly by the terrain. I don't know whether UHMWPE
(Spectra/Dyneema) would be any use on this - or would get cut up by the
field.

Bruce

The data on UHMWPE is still somewhat limited but what data there is suggests
that it outlasts both solid and stranded steel by a wide margin. A factor
seems to be that it doesn't bear down on the rough ground like steel does -
it just floats along the top so it doesn't abrade.

How about a stronger winch on your 2000 meter runway? That could produce
1000 meter AGL launches

Bill Daniels