Scheibe/Alliance SF-34

It's hard to find any decent 2 seaters in the U.S. right now. Even tired
old L-13's are hard to come by at a reasonable price. The PW-6 looks
like a good trainer, but with the dollar weak, even that is too
expensive. Howsabout talking HPH into building a 2 seat equivalent to
the 304c?

That would be a great idea....and I know it has at least crossed the minds
of the HpH team...but the cost to develop a new two seat trainer and bring
it to the market would today be I think, intolerable. We're even seeing
resistance to the high costs of older and current designs in the two place
market and the development costs of these were covered years ago. I doubt
there is market enough for 100-200 new two seat gliders at
$100,000 -$150,000 each today and that's likely what would be needed for
anyone to be successful with a new design.

Speaking of Glasflugels: What ever happened to that 2 place side-by-side
Glasflugel design?

that and many other "Hanle" brainstorms were unfortunately lost with his
untimely passing.
tim

Tim

Fortunately, the factory price of a PW-6, instrumented in both cockpits
is US 60,000 today -- trailer extra

I doubt there is market enough for 100-200 new two seat gliders at
$100,000 -$150,000 each today and that's likely what would be needed for
anyone to be successful with a new design.

"Charles Yeates" wrote in message
...


Tim

Fortunately, the factory price of a PW-6, instrumented in both cockpits is
US 60,000 today -- trailer extra

I doubt there is market enough for 100-200 new two seat gliders at
$100,000 -$150,000 each today and that's likely what would be needed for
anyone to be successful with a new design.


I know Charles is the North American dealer and he's pushing his product but
this is a really great deal. I've flown his PW-6 and it' s a sweet, very
well built trainer. If anything, Charles is understating the PW-6's
qualities. It deserves to be on everybodys short list for a new trainer.

The only concern I have is that the low mounted tailplane has elevator
balance horns with a small gap between the stabilizer and horn. If you
operate from a trashy, littered airfield there is a tiny chance FOD could
get jammed in that gap. On any respectable airfield, that should never be a
concern.

Disclaimer: I have no financial connection.

Bill Daniels

I campaigned hard in my club for a PW-6, but the dollar fell faster than
I could convince membership. Oh to have had the foresight to have bought
the PW-5/PW6 package when the dollar was strong!

In article .com,
wrote:

I have a fair amount of time in the back seat of the SF-34. From a
CFI's, (at least this CFI), point of view, it's easier to fly than the
G103 in that the controls are more haromonized and it does well in weak
lift. At speeds above about seventy knots it seems to out run, (albeit
slowly), the G103. The useful load is better as most 103's in this
country have less useful load by virtue of their age and damage
history. From a student or at least a front seat point of view, there
is a bit less foot room than the 103 as the nose is more pointed. The
SF-34 ground handles better than the 103 because of the manner in which
it is so easily balance on the main wheel. There is quite a lot of
room in the back seat and I even need some extra cushions, (I'm 5' 10")
in order to reach the stick in it's full forward position. There are
only two in the US that I know of and the one I've been flying is at
the Moriarty airport in NM. All-in-all, the SF-34 is a lot of bang for
the buck.

Regards,

Billy Hill


Thanks for the info. I flew the other one 3 times when it was based at
Bermadoo high about 20 years ago (hi Frank!). Once from the front seat
and twice from the back giving rides. My faint recollection is that it
was a pleasant ship to fly. Except for an ominous clunking that sounded
like the wings were trying to fall off. As it turns out, there was
eventually an AD on that because the wings WERE trying to fall off. I
trust the wing issue has been dealt with on the Moriarty SF-34.

Now that you mention it, I do remember the ease of ground handling.

To see some IGC files of SF-34 flights look for example the
http://www.onlinecontest.de/olcphp/2...0 b09ba100d9f

wrote:

"The useful load is better as most 103's in this
country have less useful load by virtue of their age and damage
history."


Billy,

How does one calibrate a ship's useful load by virtue of its age and DH?
As far as DH goes, George Applebay used to maintain a properly repaired
ship is stronger than original, albeit a mite heavier.

I'd be interested in your comments ---

Thanks,

Bob Johnson

Bob

It's the heavier that counts to reduce the allowable load limit

albeit a mite heavier.

Charles Yeates wrote:


Bob

It's the heavier that counts to reduce the allowable load limit

albeit a mite heavier.




Thanks, Charles I agree -- what's the calculation?

Bob

Bob:
Quite simple actually. Max gross weight doesn't change, but as gliders
get older and equipment is added or someone paints over the old gel
without grinding down to the glass, or grinds down to the glass them
repaints/gels and profiles the wings, they seem to get heavier. More
so if some repairs have been made. George is correct in that the glider
is most likely stronger, but increased strength does nothing for the
useful load. If the weight of the glider increases, but the max gross
doesn't then what suffers? The useful load.

Regards,

Billy Hill