New trainer from SZD Bielsko

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
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.

How so? A 2-33 stalls (really) at about 40 MPH. My Nimbus 2C stalls at
38mph and I can turn inside a 1-26 if the ballast tanks are dry. If I open
the dive brakes to the point they want to rest, the Nimbus 2C glides about
like a 2-22. If I open them all the way it's 1:1 at 55mph.


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.

Yes harder, but the errors will be on the safe side - i.e. the HP glider
will go farther than the student is willing to believe.


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

You bet! And once you have created the mind set that higher performance
glider are difficult to fly - they WILL be more difficult to fly for that
student.

Bill Daniels

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

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 |

"Martin Gregorie" wrote in message
...
Bruce wrote:


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.


Why would this cost more? Almost all glider canopies (made by Mecplex or
Weiss in Germany who make nearly all current glider canopies) are molded in
one piece and then cut in two for gliders like the K21 with separate front
and rear canopies, so even if you only need the front canopy for a K21 you
would be paying for the cost of both pieces anyway.
tim

--
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

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.

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.


The Taurus could make an excellent trainer. It is however a tailwheel
glider, for some that may present a problem.
We had hoped to have one for display at Oshkosh/AirVenture but that is
not going to happen. The first one to a USA customer is scheduled for
this fall. More than 12 have been delivered so far.

It is available as a pure glider, selflauncher with a Rotax 503 and
soon in an electric launch version.

Robert Mudd
Pipistrel, Taurus dealer

On Jun 21, 10:49 am, Ray Lovinggood
wrote:
The 'new' SZD two place ship does look interesting,
but is it a better 'mid price range' trainer than the
PW6? What about thePeregrine(nee KR-02)? And, of
course, the tried and true Blaniks (L-13 and L-23).

Is thePeregrineeven 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

I'd left a message and e-mailed http://www.PeregrineAerospace.com the
other day. Patty Barry called today to update me on the status of
their project. Some of the delay is certifying material changes, so
that domestically available steel and aluminum can be used. This also
includes weldment processes and testing, so progress takes some time.
She was cautiously optimistic about this winter.

Frank Whiteley

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.

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
With all due respect I am not sure that this portion of the debate is
meaningful until the participants clarify and agree upon what it is they
are "training" for. If we are training for advanced cross country,
competition, or step up to high performance single seats then the
observation is correct. If we are ab initio training in hope to solo the
student in the subject glider then we need something robust, insurable for
student pilots, and economical for the typical club. Higher performance
rarely serves those needs - so there is a downside.

Roy B.