New trainer from SZD Bielsko

Bill Daniels wrote:

Beautiful! I love a one piece canopy.

All I see is that big structural element which seems to severely limit
the instructors vision. Not exactly what I would call safe in a glider
focused on primary training.

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.

An instructor who cannot reliably judging his glide range should
immediately have pulled his instructor license. I don't know about the
place where you fly, but where I do, no student will be sent to his
check ride before he has demonstrated that he masters the calculations
in flight. Extra performance doesn't add any safety, it just shifts the
numbers in the calculations.

Stefan napisał(a):
All I see is that big structural element which seems to severely limit
the instructors vision. Not exactly what I would call safe in a glider
focused on primary training.

From what you're saying I can see that you have never flown Puchacz.
I'm instructor and I've spent some time in the back seat of this glider,
never had any problems with visibility. The Perkoz seems to be better
when it comes to visibility so don't worry. Besides what is more
important in a trainer is a visibility from the front seat, where
student place is.


Regards
--
--=JJay=--
www.aeroklub.deblin.pl, my photos on airliners.net - http://tiny.pl/rcwl

--=JJay=-- schrieb:

From what you're saying I can see that you have never flown Puchacz.

You're correct, my statement was based only on theoretical geometrical
considerations.

Besides what is more important in a trainer is a visibility from the
front seat, where student place is.

I couldn't disagree more.

I am an active CFI who has taught in or flown virtually all of the 2-place
gliders (ranging from 2-22 to ASH-25). It is important to remember that a
trainer needs to be reasonably robust and reasonably insurable. While I
read many opinions about the benefits of ab initio training on some of the
really sleek 2 place gliders - I don't know any club that really would
allow a first solo in a Duo Discus or DG-1000. I also don't know any
insurance company that would tolerate it. So - it seems to me that SZD
really understands it market and will likely sell a bunch of these
ships. I hope that they do. IMHO there really is a need for a good solid
2 place trainer that can go on the market for around 60,000 Euro ($80,000)
for the basic ship.

Roy B.

The 'new' SZD two place ship does look interesting,
but is it a better 'mid price range' trainer than the
PW6? What about the Peregrine (nee KR-02)? And, of
course, the tried and true Blaniks (L-13 and L-23).

Is the Peregrine even alive these days?

Oh yea, how about that other new two seater, the Taunus.
That's a nice looking ship! Even available as a self-launcher,
I think.


Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA


At 15:24 21 June 2007, Roy Bourgeois wrote:
I am an active CFI who has taught in or flown virtually
all of the 2-place
gliders (ranging from 2-22 to ASH-25). It is important
to remember that a
trainer needs to be reasonably robust and reasonably
insurable. While I
read many opinions about the benefits of ab initio
training on some of the
really sleek 2 place gliders - I don't know any club
that really would
allow a first solo in a Duo Discus or DG-1000. I also
don't know any
insurance company that would tolerate it. So - it
seems to me that SZD
really understands it market and will likely sell a
bunch of these
ships. I hope that they do. IMHO there really is
a need for a good solid
2 place trainer that can go on the market for around
60,000 Euro ($80,000)
for the basic ship.

Roy B.

On 21 Jun, 14:30, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:

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.

A high performance glider will always be slippery, which means it will
accelerate fast, which means that elevator/attitude/speed control will
be harder to learn. Won't it?

Ian

Bill Daniels 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.



I agree conditionally.

This is one area where the old crates make better trainers, as the difference in
effective glide ratio is much more affected by wind. The safe circuit differs
markedly with a 1:26 L/D and a wind component that can be a significant fraction
of stall speed. So it is easier to teach the mental calculations required, and
when to draw the line in terms of the - Is it safe to launch? decision.

A higher penetration , higher performance trainer makes the distances involved a
little bigger, so they may be harder to judge. In this instance I believe higher
performance may lower safety.

The downside of training exclusively in low performance gliders is that
transition to even a moderate performance single seater is more difficult.

Bruce

Bruce wrote:

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.

I've ridden back seat in the Puchacz once or twice. Rear vision is a bit
restricted, but the main thing I noticed was internal reflections in
that long, glass tunnel.

There's one possible disadvantage that I'm surprised the nobody has
mentioned: replacing Puchacz/Perkoz canopies is much more expensive than
replacing K-21 or G.103 canopies due to the sheer single piece size.


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

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


hopefully the issues of Puchacz spins don't present with this glider
too. They look very similar.