Club Glider Hangar?

noel.wade wrote:

...As far as training goes: I like the idea of kicking people out of
the 2-seaters at some point. I don't know if we can do it _right_
after solo - but certainly at some point afterwards.

Well, it IS a matter of presentation. By the time our students are
approaching solo they've seen the Juniors being flown and heard all
about them, so they're usually quite eager to make the transition. Like
some other clubs, we have enough trade for our two seaters without tying
them up as early solo gliders. Besides, that's what Juniors were
designed for. They're strong, easy to fly, with a low landing speed and
that huge shock absorbing wheel. Derek Pigott thinks its the ideal early
solo glider. Its a little go-cart of a glider that feels really light
and handleable after a K.21 - much the same as I hear about the 1-26.

You need to get your CFI-Gs into it so they're ready to brief the new
solos making the transition. Our instructors are required to be familiar
with all club single seaters for just that reason and get several hours
per year free in the club ships to make that happen. Maybe a similar
allowance would get your ball rolling too?

Once the Junior is out and being flown regularly word should spread
about how nice it is and a queue should form. I bet part of the problem
is that nobody wants to fly it simply because its never flown and
"therefore there MUST be something wrong with it".

I flew my Silver distance in one and did it remarkably slowly, but that
was down to me, not the glider. The Poles have reportedly done 300s in
them, though its a bit slow for serious XC. You don't fly faster than 60
kts if you want to stay high, but they thermal well and are brilliant at
tiptoeing along weak evening energy lines. They have considerably better
performance on paper than a 1-26. I'd love to fly both back to back some
day.

BTW, what market was the 1-26 aimed at?

We get a lot of interested students who come out and sign up (and the
XC pilots in our club are really driving a lot of the interest and
enthusiasm around here); but then the new members leave the club
because they don't feel that they are getting timely instruction or
guidance.

We introduced a booking scheme to deal with that. Students can book a
K.21 for half a day, which guarantees at least a half share of the
glider and instructor. Part of the deal is that they must be there to
unpack the hangar (morning booking) or to put stuff away (afternoon
booking). This seems to work well and is popular with the students: its
an online booking scheme via the club's web site.

There's usually a third two seater available for trial flights and club
members who want to fly it, so casual flying and check rides don't
interfere with the booking scheme.

It also doesn't help that our current club uses a clunky 1-36 as its
"transition trainer" to single-seaters.

Was that intended as an early solo glider? How does its performance and
handling compare with a Junior?

No one likes the aircraft, so
there's not a lot of enthusiasm to get students into it.

Ah, but have you asked the students? If its as viceless as a K21 and
performs a bit better they just might like it. Hmm, or maybe not. On
paper a K21 will outperform it and the Junior would have it for breakfast.

Also, the
club that merged with us had a flight rule that _required_ students to
land a 1-26 out in a field, disassemble it, and trailer it back to the
airport. They had to do this before they could ever go cross-country
in club equipment.

That's not so silly. The land-out requirement is sort of equivalent to
having out Bronze with XC endorsement. Out Juniors are usually rigged,
but the higher performance club gliders are often kept in their trailers
on the grounds that anybody going XC in them must know how to rig and
de-rig them.

Information from other clubs on similar issues and how you've
conquered them are always appreciated!

HTH


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

On Jan 10, 4:46*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:

that huge shock absorbing wheel. Derek Pigott thinks its the ideal early
solo glider. *Its a little go-cart of a glider that feels really light
and handleable after a K.21 - much the same as I hear about the 1-26.

They sound nice! Don't know that there are many in the States. With
the Euro & Dollar situation, we CERTAINLY cannot afford to import
anything right now! :-P

per year free in the club ships to make that happen. Maybe a similar
allowance would get your ball rolling too?

Right now CFIGs and Tow Pilots are pretty much "free" of all fees,
though I think they do have to pay for solo (non instructional)
tows.

We introduced a booking scheme to deal with that. Students can book a
K.21 for half a day, which guarantees at least a half share of the
glider and instructor. Part of the deal is that they must be there to

Yeah I'm working on something similar via an online calendar system on
our site. It won't be a "binding reservation system" for all gliders
(members are howling about past failed experiments with that) - but I
do want to try to restrict training to specific hours and only 2
students per instructor per day, to increase the quality of
instruction and frequency of flights (rather than 5 or 6 students
showing up and overloading 1 CFIG).

Was that intended as an early solo glider? How does its performance and
handling compare with a Junior?

The 1-36 is _not_ a great first ship. Its not horrible; but its
aileron performance is very poor at low speed (every Schweizer is
different, ours is apparently worse than average), and it has a LOT of
weight on the tail. The short fuselage makes it prone to PIOs on
takeoff (though I didn't have a problem with it myself, I can see how
people would).

Ah, but have you asked the students? If its as viceless as a K21 and

Hahah, ASK-21? We use Blanik L-13s and 23s. We have no glass 2-
seaters. :-( There was a donated DG-1000, but it was designated for
"advanced training" by the foundation that manages it (they want to
use it as collateral for a potential airfield purchase at some point
in the future). Then they required pilots to have their Silver Badge
before they could use it. And now its basically being paid for by a
syndicate (a club within the club) of about 14 pilots. *sigh* No one
else can use it...

That's not so silly. The land-out requirement is sort of equivalent to
having out Bronze with XC endorsement. Out Juniors are usually rigged,
but the higher performance club gliders are often kept in their trailers
* on the grounds that anybody going XC in them must know how to rig and
de-rig them.

Right, and part of a ground checkout for our gliders is to be able to
(at the very least) talk your way through a rig/derig of the glider in
question. But a 1-26 is not the most convenient glider to physically
de-rig in a field and trailer back to the airport. Would be nicer to
use our Apis or something similar if we *do* have that requirement, so
that it wasn't such a big ordeal to make it happen.

Thanks a bunch, Martin... The more info, the better!

--Noel

noel.wade wrote:

Thanks a bunch, Martin... The more info, the better!

Glad to help.

Sorry about the Junior/K.21 mixup. It was getting late and I must have
confused two posts. Our booking system isn't binding, but if you show up
late you loose your claim on the glider if anybody else wants it.

There are or were about 4 Juniors in the USA. Williams Soaring had one
in which I flew in 2001. It was the nicest Junior I've seen: in
excellent condition and retro-fitted with a hydraulic brake which
actually worked without binding. The brake activation was by applying
full air brake rather than the usual lever on the front of the air brake
handle.


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

On Jan 11, 1:33*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
snip

There are or were about 4 Juniors in the USA. Williams Soaring had one
in which I flew in 2001. It was the nicest Junior I've seen: in
excellent condition and retro-fitted with a hydraulic brake which
actually worked without binding. The brake activation was by applying
full air brake rather than the usual lever on the front of the air brake
handle.

That would be nice. Wish my glider could have that!

One club I fly at had a perpetual problem with low usage of it's glass two
seater. The K13 was what everyone learned on, and soloed on. The perception was
that the big twin was special, and needed to be looked after, protected from low
time pilots.

The problem was that over the years the glass ship accumulated so many rules and
so much caution about it's use that it became so onerous to fly that people
stopped. It became a holy cow of a hangar queen that did not cover it's
insurance let alone the depreciation cost.

So - a little advice. If you find an asset not being used, look at the
procedures relating to it's use. Low time solo pilots should be safe in
something like an Apis - encourage them to fly it.

Funny thing is that when we changed the rule and made it standard procedure to
drag the hangar queen to the launch point every day - and lightened up a little
on the restrictions - it gets flown.

wrote:

As several others have commented my take would also be that the
motivation level of club members to get in the air and enjoy soaring
is not as high as it could be. I do believe that ready rigged gliders
are helpful, but at our club I can tell you that everyone of the
privately owned gliders has to be rigged each flying day and they are
enthusiastically . Sometimes one or other of the club gliders ( all
are assembled and in the hangar ) might not get taken out to the field
for flying ! The trainers usually are well used but the single seaters
are very poorly used, in fact we are selling one as we can't justify
having two .
Well done to the instructors who keep the enthusiasm level up with
students but shame on the rest of us for not encouraging and pushing
the post solo pilots into setting some goals like badge flying to help
them discover the FUN of leaving the field and cross country flying.
Over the years I have become convinced that one of the biggest dangers
for a club is to not spend time on encouraging new pilots and members
to seek improvements in their flying abilities.
Some ideas that have worked, and are aimed at better morale include:

* Encouraging Badge flying .
* Club boards posted in the hangar each new year for pilots to write
up good flights ( Best altitude , Best distance , Best
duration ,etc )
* Regular club contests ( modest cross country tasks , spot
landings ,etc )
* Taking new pilots on cross coutry flights in 2 seaters .

It might be worth considering a club member or two taking
responsibility for trying to promote some of these activities and
remember it's the next generation of soaring pilots that need to be
targetted . Good Luck.

Ron Clarke.

On Jan 11, 10:54*am, Bruce wrote:
So - a little advice. If you find an asset not being used, look at the
procedures relating to it's use. *Low time solo pilots should be safe in
something like an Apis - encourage them to fly it.

Funny thing is that when we changed the rule and made it standard procedure to
drag the hangar queen to the launch point every day - and lightened up a little
on the restrictions - it gets flown.

Thanks, Bruce!

Yes I've always had the opinion that our time-limits on club gliders
was a discouraging factor.

For our Apis, I think the flaps make the senior members overly
cautious (but AFAIK we could just tell low-time pilots to leave the
flaps in the 0 position and they'd be fine). Also, the rules require
10 solo flights in the unpopular 1-36 before being able to fly the
Apis... Students go from a very solid-handling L-13 to a very poor-
handling 1-36 (twitchy in pitch, sluggish in roll) - and I think they
tend to like the feel of the L-13 better, so they are more likely to
go back to it, instead of progressing to the Apis or Astir or L-33.

Take care,

--Noel

Any idea what the cost of these hangers was?

Mike Schumann

"John Galloway" wrote in message
...
At 19:42 10 January 2008, Mike Schumann wrote:
Not only can you do damage to the glider when rigging
and derigging, but
there have been numerous accidents resulting from rigging
errors, quite a
few of which were fatal.

If you have the luxury of hangers, you end up with
an inherently safer
operation. Not to mention the obvious advantages of
time and effort that
become more important as we age.

It would be really helpful if we could get one of the
companies marketing
steel hangers to come up with a standard glider hanger
design so that
interested clubs would be able to order economical
hanger kits that they can
either self build, or have erected by a local contractor.

Mike Schumann




I could put interested parties in touch with the designer
of the Scottish Gliding Union hangar and you could
adopt a proven design. It would be hard to come up
with a more space and material efficient design. There
is another one being constructed at an English club
and a second one is being planned for Portmoak making
3 in total. The second Portmoak hangar will probably
have minor changes to the roof height and pitch to
cater for high dihedral wingletted gliders like the
V 2cxT and D2cT. There will also be a gravel floor
rather then the mix in the original hangar and also
detail changes to the door runners.

The design is based around bays suitable for 18m gliders
although, because the two rows of gliders are necessarily
offset, there is one smaller 15m bay and one larger
bay (for Duos) etc at each end of the hangar.

The second SGU hangar will be entirely financed by
individual and syndicate private glider owners but
owned by the club. (All the club gliders are already
housed in the first hangar) The investors will get
16 years free hangarage and trailer parking before
having to pay for their hangar bay. Within that period
they will have the right sell the residual time in
that bay at whatever price they can get for it. A
similar financial model might interest other clubs.

John Galloway









--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Cats wrote:
On Jan 11, 1:33 pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
snip
There are or were about 4 Juniors in the USA. Williams Soaring had one
in which I flew in 2001. It was the nicest Junior I've seen: in
excellent condition and retro-fitted with a hydraulic brake which
actually worked without binding. The brake activation was by applying
full air brake rather than the usual lever on the front of the air brake
handle.

That would be nice. Wish my glider could have that!

You've got the brake lever on the stick same as a Libelle, haven't you?

That works for me. The one snag with the air brake deployment with a
tail dragger is when you're going for a short field landing on wet
grass. If the wheel is locked when you touch down a variety of
interesting things might happen including but not limited to sliding
into the far hedge. One of our Discii nearly got totaled in similar
circumstances - very wet field, pilot landing toward hard things, hit
the brake and locked up the wheel which caused it to aquaplane.

The Williams Junior was operated off a hard runway, so this wasn't an
issue. In any case, as I'm sure you know, standard Junior brakes are
digital - either they don't work at all or they drag when off and stand
it on its nose when used. The brake lever on air brake handle is a bit
awkward too. Not that this bothers me - I think I've used them about
twice in well over 50 landings: properly held off they don't run far at all.

Mainly it was nice to fly a Junior with a good, progressive wheel brake.


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

Mike,

Provisional estimate for the planned second hangar
is around £9-£10,000 sterling per glider bay depending
on the amount of voluntary work for non-skilled tasks.

John


At 21:30 11 January 2008, Mike Schumann wrote:
Any idea what the cost of these hangers was?

Mike Schumann

'John Galloway' wrote in message
...
At 19:42 10 January 2008, Mike Schumann wrote:
Not only can you do damage to the glider when rigging
and derigging, but
there have been numerous accidents resulting from rigging
errors, quite a
few of which were fatal.

If you have the luxury of hangers, you end up with
an inherently safer
operation. Not to mention the obvious advantages of
time and effort that
become more important as we age.

It would be really helpful if we could get one of the
companies marketing
steel hangers to come up with a standard glider hanger
design so that
interested clubs would be able to order economical
hanger kits that they can
either self build, or have erected by a local contractor.

Mike Schumann




I could put interested parties in touch with the designer
of the Scottish Gliding Union hangar and you could
adopt a proven design. It would be hard to come up
with a more space and material efficient design.
There
is another one being constructed at an English club
and a second one is being planned for Portmoak making
3 in total. The second Portmoak hangar will probably
have minor changes to the roof height and pitch to
cater for high dihedral wingletted gliders like the
V 2cxT and D2cT. There will also be a gravel floor
rather then the mix in the original hangar and also
detail changes to the door runners.

The design is based around bays suitable for 18m gliders
although, because the two rows of gliders are necessarily
offset, there is one smaller 15m bay and one larger
bay (for Duos) etc at each end of the hangar.

The second SGU hangar will be entirely financed by
individual and syndicate private glider owners but
owned by the club. (All the club gliders are already
housed in the first hangar) The investors will get
16 years free hangarage and trailer parking before
having to pay for their hangar bay. Within that period
they will have the right sell the residual time in
that bay at whatever price they can get for it. A
similar financial model might interest other clubs.

John Galloway









--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

noel.wade wrote:
On Jan 11, 10:54 am, Bruce wrote:
So - a little advice. If you find an asset not being used, look at the
procedures relating to it's use. Low time solo pilots should be safe in
something like an Apis - encourage them to fly it.

Funny thing is that when we changed the rule and made it standard procedure to
drag the hangar queen to the launch point every day - and lightened up a little
on the restrictions - it gets flown.

Thanks, Bruce!

Snip...

For our Apis, I think the flaps make the senior members overly
cautious (but AFAIK we could just tell low-time pilots to leave the
flaps in the 0 position and they'd be fine).
Snip...

--Noel

Hi Noel,

Sounds as if we're in agreement on this particular aspect of glider
'complexity' but I thought I'd use this as an opportunity to interject a
viewpoint that (to me!) seems obvious, yet based on your
comment/observation above, and my own experiences...*isn't*!!!

The anal part of me occasionally would like to know exactly how many
times I've heard the following 2 positions (usually in opposition to
some sort of proposed fleet change in a club) espoused (with varying
degrees of vehemence):
1) flaps (not the landing kind, merely the camber-changing efficiency
kind) are definitionally 'too complex' to even be considered as a new
club ship, and...
2) ditto retractable landing gear.

Color me bemused.

If I'm Joe Instructor (which I'm not), I'd be seeking to convey those
seeking my input, how to use their in-flight brains critically, and not
simply 'rotely.' IMHO, camber-changing flaps and retractable gear to me
are platter-served superb teaching and skill-expanding devices. (It's
left as an exercise for the reader to reconcile 'skill-expanding' with
'safety-enhancing'...)

On my question list for wannabe transitionees (I was one, once, & I
asked myself these same questions) a
a) why mess with the flaps at all?
b) why mess with the gear at all?

I'd expect decent comprehensive replies - probably coming only after an
extended conversation about these aspects - before I'd be comfortable
saying, "Have at it!"

Flying nothing but (large-deflection-for-landing) flapped and
retractable geared ships since transitioning from a 1-26, I recognize
it's human nature to want to fiddle with new stuff (i.e. camber-changing
flaps and retractable gear). I further readily acknowledge some ships
definitely benefit from negative flaps at the outset of takeoff rolls,
and that retract gears are (arguably) less strong than fixed gears.

Those things noted, understand that neither of my first two flapped
ships *had* negative flap options. I'd further point out that most (not
all) poor landings sufficiently hard as to damage retract gear
mechanisms, are so violent as to simultaneously risk damaging fixed gear
support structures. But to the point of human nature, clearly it's not
going to change....but - IMHO - some of its more obviously off-the-wall
impulses easily fall within the purview of sensible instruction. If I
seriously thought my glider club mostly consisted of members so
off-the-wall as to not be able to resist reasoned injunctions against
not messing with flaps or gear until higher priority flight control and
safety issues associated with transitioning to a new single-seat club
ship had become second-nature to them, then I, too, would vote against
acquiring flapped, retractable single-seaters. Happily, I've never seen
such a club.

Regards,
Bob - soapbox now stored - W.