Manual for Schweitzer 2-32

Hmmm - something like:
2-22

Yeah, the 2-33 fuselage is the same as the 2-22's, the wings could be
exchanged in principle. 52' and 23:1 was a big improvement over 40' and
18:1. BTW, Schweizer is without a "t", like Swiss, unlike Dr. Albert.

My point is not that the US should not have made gliders or that Schweizer
should not have made them. It's that those gliders should have been far
better than they were. And they would have been far better if the vast
repository of aeronautical knowledge available in the US aerospace industry
was utilized.

During the 1960's much of that knowledge resided in Southern California -
far from upstate NY. Many of those aeronautical engineers were glider
pilots and would have gladly donated their knowledge if asked. They weren't
asked and the results show it. That's the tragedy.

Bill Daniels


"John H. Campbell" jhpc@greeleynet-dot-com wrote in message
...
Hmmm - something like:
2-22

Yeah, the 2-33 fuselage is the same as the 2-22's, the wings could be
exchanged in principle. 52' and 23:1 was a big improvement over 40' and
18:1. BTW, Schweizer is without a "t", like Swiss, unlike Dr. Albert.

Bill Daniels wrote:
During the 1960's much of that knowledge resided in Southern California -
far from upstate NY. Many of those aeronautical engineers were glider
pilots and would have gladly donated their knowledge if asked. They weren't
asked and the results show it. That's the tragedy.

Heck, if Schweizer had taken advice from engineers in Silicon Valley,
we'd all be flying 100:1 gliders that cost $1.98 to manufacture. That's
the real tragedy...

Marc Ramsey wrote:
Bill Daniels wrote:
During the 1960's much of that knowledge resided in Southern California -
far from upstate NY. Many of those aeronautical engineers were glider
pilots and would have gladly donated their knowledge if asked. They weren't
asked and the results show it. That's the tragedy.

Heck, if Schweizer had taken advice from engineers in Silicon Valley,
we'd all be flying 100:1 gliders that cost $1.98 to manufacture. That's
the real tragedy...

Heck, if Schweizer had taken advice from Silicon Valley, they probably
wouldn't have stayed in business for over 75 years. By the way, there
were 3 brothers, not 2, & one of them is still alive. Bill, a great guy
& very generous & helpful man. As Director of the National Soaring
Museum, I miss Paul a whole lot, but Bill is very devoted to & still
interested in soaring. Did I mention he's a great guy?

Peter Smith wrote:
Marc Ramsey wrote:
Bill Daniels wrote:
During the 1960's much of that knowledge resided in Southern California -
far from upstate NY. Many of those aeronautical engineers were glider
pilots and would have gladly donated their knowledge if asked. They weren't
asked and the results show it. That's the tragedy.
Heck, if Schweizer had taken advice from engineers in Silicon Valley,
we'd all be flying 100:1 gliders that cost $1.98 to manufacture. That's
the real tragedy...

Heck, if Schweizer had taken advice from Silicon Valley, they probably
wouldn't have stayed in business for over 75 years. By the way, there
were 3 brothers, not 2, & one of them is still alive. Bill, a great guy
& very generous & helpful man. As Director of the National Soaring
Museum, I miss Paul a whole lot, but Bill is very devoted to & still
interested in soaring. Did I mention he's a great guy?


He's the one that tells the joke about his own name in his autobio
"Soaring with the Schweizers": Sez the ground radio voice to Bill who
identified himself as "W. Schweizer": "Is that the missionary, the
swiss cheese maker, or the sailplane manufacturer?". To that, one can
more recently add "the conservative writer?" (z), "the christian
paleontologist?" (tz), "the state governor?" (tz)...

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
"kirk.stant" wrote:


Totally concur about the 2-33, though - what were they thinking!
Hmmm - something like:
2-22
rugged
reliable
safe
--
T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

Yep, I sure wish I was going to fly to Phoenix in a nice old DC-7 this
afternoon instead of a nice new A-320, those old recips are so rugged,
reliable, and safe!

Actually, having flown in DC-7s way back in the dark ages (and Connies,
C-54s, even C-119s!), I do kinda miss them.

Sorry, I just have a hard time warming to a high-wing strutted glider
designed after something as beautiful (my opinion, I agree) as the
Blanik (the original Warsaw Pact milspec ones - with the beautiful
flush riveting, etc...).

To each his own, I suppose. Happy Thanksgiving!

Kirk
66

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
The question was what Schweitzer had in mind when the 2-33
was designed. The designers of the DC-7 designed for their
times, just like the designers of the 2-33. With decades of
hindsight, they probably could have done better, but that
comment applies to everything that's ever been built. They
were trying to build something better than the 2-22 that met
the needs of their customers. IMHO, they succeeded.


I would have to disagree. The DC-7 was state of the art when designed
and put in use - but had a relatively short life in airline service
before being replaced by the first generation of jets (707, DC-8, etc).
The 2-33 was definitely NOT state of the art in glider trainers when
designed (think Blanik, Ka-7) but the bare minimum improvement over the
truly antique 2-22 that could be flogged on the US (and Canadian)
gliding community. They didn't meet the needs of their customers -
they imposed it, and we are still paying the price.

Then they bailed out of gliders. Yeah, I know, the Germans forced them
out of business. Tell that to Cessna or Piper...

If that is your definition of success, so be it.

Check out the success of clubs/schools that have moved away from 2-33s
to glass. It might surprise you.

Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving!

Kirk

"kirk.stant" wrote in message
ups.com...
T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
The question was what Schweitzer had in mind when the 2-33
was designed. The designers of the DC-7 designed for their
times, just like the designers of the 2-33. With decades of
hindsight, they probably could have done better, but that
comment applies to everything that's ever been built. They
were trying to build something better than the 2-22 that met
the needs of their customers. IMHO, they succeeded.


I would have to disagree. The DC-7 was state of the art when designed
and put in use - but had a relatively short life in airline service
before being replaced by the first generation of jets (707, DC-8, etc).
The 2-33 was definitely NOT state of the art in glider trainers when
designed (think Blanik, Ka-7) but the bare minimum improvement over the
truly antique 2-22 that could be flogged on the US (and Canadian)
gliding community. They didn't meet the needs of their customers -
they imposed it, and we are still paying the price.

Then they bailed out of gliders. Yeah, I know, the Germans forced them
out of business. Tell that to Cessna or Piper...

If that is your definition of success, so be it.

Check out the success of clubs/schools that have moved away from 2-33s
to glass. It might surprise you.

Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving!

Kirk


Actually, the K-7 and Blanik L-13 preceeded the 2-33 by about a decade. The
beautiful K13 was a 2-33 contemporary.

If you look at the gliders in the link Uli Neumann provided (
http://www.luftarchiv.de/ ) you will see designs from the 1930's that appear
to be 2-33 equivalents. You could say that the 2-33 was a bad copy of a
1930's German design, produced in the 1970's and, unfortunately, still in
service in the 21st century.

One can only wonder what would have happened if Schweizer had produced a K13
equivalent.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels wrote:
One can only wonder what would have happened if Schweizer had produced a K13
equivalent.

During the 60s and 70s I would guess the ratio of 2-33s purchased in
the US versus K7s, K13s, and Blaniks brought here was something in
excess of 20:1. Nobody forced anyone to buy 2-33s, Schweizer simply
built what people here wanted to buy...

Marc

Hi Todd,

On 22 Nov 2006 14:45:01 -0600, T o d d P a t t i s t
wrote:

My "definition of success" is that lots of gliders get sold
to people who want to buy them and that lots of people fly
them and enjoy flying them.

Well... if it really were "lots of people fly them and enjoy flying
them" I wouldn't have to read threads like this on RAS once per
month...


Bye
Andreas