If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
For more limited resources than required for an aerotowed AS-K21:
A. Winch. A cheap way to launch students to solo. B. Ka13. Comfortable, nice handling (better prep for slippery ships), can do limited aerobatics, climbs great on a winch, and has factory support. If you insist on a Schweizer, go for the 2-22, which has better handling qualities than the 2-33. But one handicap nearly all US operations seem to have is the desire to park the fleet outside in the weather, adding complications. Want a demonstration of inexpensive? Here's a 2-22 auto tow video... http://www.youtube.com/user/dacekner...10/pLUAS7wD_eo Josh goes XC in his Ka8 off these tows. Jim |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
Darryl Ramm wrote:
I don't understand why someone would still buy an ASK21 today when you can get a DG1000 or a Duo which offer *much* more performance for little more money. And yes, they are perfectly suited for primary training. I know they can and credit to places that are doing this, but I think there is still a place for a slightly more "agricultural" primary trainer. Especially if there is a training fleet to keep busy with primary instruction. .... attracting people who are likely to stay around and fly XC, buy their own gliders, etc. - that is helped by having a more modern training fleet and focus on XC capable ships and XC instruction/mentoring to get people going. You are aware that you are contradicting yourself? BTW, in Europe, an introduction to cross country flying is a required part of the primary training. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
"Tony" wrote in message ... On Sep 15, 9:59 am, Westbender wrote: You guys throw around these ideas that we should just do away with 2-33 and train with new DG's and ASK21's. Have you ever considered how many smaller clubs there are that cannot afford to do such a thing? If you're willing to donate the money to our club for a new ASK21, we'd be happy to accomodate your idea. exactly. i'm a member of two clubs and i dont think either one could afford a new ASK, Duo, or DG if they sold all of their assets. Small clubs in the UK usually use a K13, which I am told is a excellent trainer. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
On Sep 15, 10:04*am, John Smith wrote:
Darryl Ramm wrote: I don't understand why someone would still buy an ASK21 today when you can get a DG1000 or a Duo which offer *much* more performance for little more money. And yes, they are perfectly suited for primary training. I know they can and credit to places that are doing this, but I think there is still a place for a slightly more "agricultural" primary trainer. Especially if there is a training fleet to keep busy with primary instruction. ... attracting people who are likely to stay around and fly XC, buy their own gliders, etc. - that is helped by having a more modern training fleet and focus on XC capable ships and XC instruction/mentoring to get people going. You are aware that you are contradicting yourself? BTW, in Europe, an introduction to cross country flying is a required part of the primary training. No, not on this (on other things I am sure frequently). Start in ASK-21s go to DG-1000S and Duo class machines. That is not a contradiction, its a compliment. If you can only afford one ship, then yes the decision is more difficult. With "more modern training fleet" I had meant to include ASK-21. It might look old compared to a DG-1000S Club but it has decades on other frequently used trainers here and removes most of the high-performance glass transition issues. I wish USA training had a progression to XC that was more structured/ mandatory than the SSA ABC badges. The ABC badge program is a good start but many places just see to leave students lost what to do after they have their license. Darryl |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
"Tony" wrote in message ... The 2-33 is suffering the same metal fatigue problems in it's wings as snip I notice that 3 or 4 of the USA World Team members trained in Schweizers. But since the Schweizer seems to be the training ship of choice in most US clubs that shouldn't be a surprise. It's certainly not (IMHO) an endorsement of them. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
There's an aspect of discussions as this I find quite interesting, and even
though it's a common part of them (the discussions) it's rarely mentioned. The aspect is this: people quite often (and naturally?) project their personal druthers onto the discussion as a whole...as if one's personal approach is the only - or the most - valid one. Personally, I think that if someone was king and could impose such thinking on the sport (in the U.S., anyway), participation would take an immediate and negative hit, for the reasons others (rightly, IMHO) have pointed out...e.g. costs of entry & training & fleet insurance, etc. Now as Kevin C. points out below (and he's in good company with Tom Knauff, among others I know of)... On 9/15/2010 10:58 AM, Kevin Christner wrote: Perhaps the best thing I can say is that you can teach a student to land two point or better yet tail first. Such training is definitely a good thing, IMHO... The inability of such a large percentage of US pilots to do proper low energy landings is probably the biggest contributor to the amount of ground loop damage in outlandings. I'm not about to argue the point! ....Schweizers aren't the best to teach 2-point, low-energy landings in (though it IS easily/safely/definitely possible to do so in 2-33's with the spring-tailwheel mod). That said - and with a nod toward Kevin's/Tom's 'primacy of learning argument' I'm inclined to think 'primacy' is (arguably) overstated when it comes to 2-point landing discussion. Here's why... My basic training was in 2-33's, my first single-seat gliders were 1-26s, my first 4 off-field landings were in 1-26s. And yet - when it came to performing OFLs - it was immediately obvious to me that 2-point (or lowest-possible safe energy) touchdowns were the safest (to the plane and to me) ticket...so that's what I did, both in 1-26s (4 OFls) and succeeding tail-draggers (~20 OFLs). I have *never* had any formal 2-point-landing instruction (from an instructor other than myself)...and since the mid-'70's until now have had many an occasion to share my 'soaring wisdom' - specifically the wisdom supporting low-energy field landings - with fellow practitioners. Call it 'wisdom sharing', 'bull sessions', 'beer debriefings' or whatever...we all do it. What I've found is some pilots have 'gotten it' (the wisdom, I mean) on their own, some 'immediately get it' when we chat, some clearly do not 'get it' from such discussions (though they may over time...), and some 'never get it' (despite instruction). Regardless of how they have 'gotten it' those that do, seem to actively work to apply the concept, and to further develop their landing skills/energy management going forward. As for 'primacy' in this particular instance, I'd argue it little matters, simply because OFLs rarely are 'instantaneously stressful' (the usual argument advanced in defence of the law of primacy being applicable). Hence any 'properly prepared pilot' should have ample opportunity to think through precisely what it is s/he hopes to accomplish as they are sinking toward a possible OFL (or any other landing, for that matter). Anecdotally speaking, it worked that way for me on my 1st OFL, even though it was a (dismaying!) not-actively-planned/wanted event at that time. Stated another way, the stress of an impending OFL is insufficient reason for *any* pilot to 'have to' revert to laws of primacy as their 'excuse' controlling all that's about to happen. Soaring requires thought, and excepting those emergency situations that in fact do happen suddenly and surprisingly, primacy shouldn't ever be a major factor in how one applies his or her flight skills. I suspect an absolutely fascinating statistic (if impossible to ever obtain) would be a comprehensive compilation correlating OFLs gone bad with pilot training. While I've no doubt some distinct/significant/(small?) proportion could be 'obviously' laid to some combination of inadequate/incomplete training compared to flight decisions actually made that resulted in the OFL, I'd lay significant money on there also being a (considerably?) larger proportion of OFL accidents committed by 'pilots who had every training opportunity beforehand to know better.' My point is, dual-training isn't a panacea, and anyone who argues it is is choosing to ignore a considerable proportion of reality. Regards, Bob W. P.S. My worst/only OFL-induced damage occurred on 1-26 OFL #4 when I single-mindedly landed in a freshly plowed field, and a dirt clod poked a small hole in the nose fabric. On short final I realized the biggest clod in the field was about to arrive. Yes, there were better surfaces within easy reach had I not been so (newbie-influenced) single-minded in my field surface assessments. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
On Sep 15, 10:14*am, "Surfer!" wrote:
But since the Schweizer seems to be the training ship of choice in most US clubs that shouldn't be a surprise. *It's certainly not (IMHO) an endorsement of them. I couldn't agree more! As a "younger" glider pilot myself (29 when I started), let me make a few assertions: 1) Do you think you can get *ANY* young person interested in soaring if what they see is a 2-33? After playing any modern computer game? After watching movies like "The Fast and the Furious"? The 2-33 looks like a dog and flies slowly. Those of you who talk about being "happy just to be in the air" have to realize what a tiny minority you are - and that your numbers are dwindling. People these days are often flying hundreds of miles per hour in jetliners before they're 10. They're mixing it up in 60 - 80mph traffic by the time they're 15 or 16 (and even their economy cars have power windows, power door locks, keyless remote, and a dock for their Phone/MP3-player). They're playing with Google Maps and Google Earth - seeing the world from that vantage point is not new to them. Being in the air is not new to them. They don't know what they're missing; but they *are* going to have a whole lot of preconceived notions about it, and their experiences are going to bias them towards wanting something that's fast, sleek, exciting, modern, high-tech, etc. NONE of those things apply to the 2-33. If you want to turn a young person OFF, show then a 2-33! They'll either stick to Flight Simulators or they'll walk over to fly powered airplanes - you know, "the exciting and fast kind of flying". Oh, and how many young (under 40), energetic instructors are there in the USA? Right. So from the perspective of a young person (under 35, let's say), their introduction to soaring is a 50 or 60 year old guy standing next to a glider that's of equal age. Yeah, really enticing! :-P Good luck with that, folks. At least an L-13 or L-23 looks sleeker (by comparison) and flies a whole lot better. 2) One more thing: the 2-33 is a favorite because it is cheap, and it is easy to fix/maintain (especially for FBOs/commercial operators). Notice that neither of these has ANYTHING to do with flying qualities or its value in training good pilot skills! I started in an L-13, made the jump to a 1-36 quite easily, and then had to go drop back to a 2-33 for my license. The 2-33 was HELL. Sloppy controls, TITANIC throw required to get a good response, and my big legs (I'm 6'1" and 215 lbs) meant that I had to lift my leg and tuck the stick under the back of my knee to get full aileron deflection - NOT the safest way to fly! The 2-33 is nothing like the advanced metal & glass I have flown since. Its usefulness (if it has any) is restricted to very early primary training, since you can't use it to develop advanced skills (such as flying XC or good thermal-centering in anything representing the same manner you work thermals in a more modern/capable ship). --Noel |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
On Sep 15, 8:59*am, Westbender wrote:
You guys throw around these ideas that we should just do away with 2-33 and train with new DG's and ASK21's. Have you ever considered how many smaller clubs there are that cannot afford to do such a thing? If you're willing to donate the money to our club for a new ASK21, we'd be happy to accomodate your idea. Yes, we have thought about it - a lot. The reason smaller clubs can't afford anything but 2-33's is simply BECAUSE THEY HAVE 2-33's! Their 'product' is so unappealing, they can't attract members which is why these clubs are small and poor in the first place. Dump 2-33's for ASK-21's and watch the sport grow. I learned from Paul McCready the cheapest way to do anything is to do it right in the first place. I'm a strong advocate of low cost glider flying but 2-33's are 180 degrees the wrong way to go. The solution to cheap flying is to 'do it right' with attractive gliders and a winch operation. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
As for 'primacy' in this particular instance, I'd argue it little matters, simply because OFLs rarely are 'instantaneously stressful' (the usual argument advanced in defence of the law of primacy being applicable). Hence any 'properly prepared pilot' should have ample opportunity to think through precisely what it is s/he hopes to accomplish as they are sinking toward a possible OFL (or any other landing, for that matter). Anecdotally speaking, it worked that way for me on my 1st OFL, even though it was a (dismaying!) not-actively-planned/wanted event at that time. Stated another way, the stress of an impending OFL is insufficient reason for *any* pilot to 'have to' revert to laws of primacy as their 'excuse' controlling all that's about to happen. Bob, I'm glad you realized that 2-point approaches are the best way avoid land out damage. Unfortunately, it appears a large portion of US pilots disagree with you! I appreciate your argument regarding primacy, but for most I'm not sure it works like that. Regardless of how much time you have to think about an off-field landing, they are still 'stressful' enough that reversion to bad habits is highly likely to occur. Another point would be bad things very rarely happen with the first bad decision. Too much energy at touchdown is often a result of a pattern flown to quickly. I can't count the number of times I've gone up with someone who flew their pattern 5-8kts over best L/D speed in benign conditions. When you ask why its because "its safer." This may be "safe" but it I doubt it's "safer" at the time and it certainly won't be "safer" when you are going into a 400ft field and a pattern speed 4 or 5 knots below L/D is called for. The benign conditions would have been a perfect time to practice a minimum energy pattern - but then again, they've never heard of that. And, if we accept primacy does not occur to "nerves of steel" attempting his first off field landing, I'd still preferred he has lots of practice on low energy approaches followed by minimum energy landings. Ultimately this is not an argument about 2-33's vs. K-21s, but rather an argument about the pitiful state of glider training in the US. KJC |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
On Sep 15, 11:58*am, Kevin Christner
wrote: On Sep 15, 8:37*am, Tony wrote: Find me one world team member that thinks primary training in a Schweizer is a good idea. *I doubt you'll have any glowing advocates. unless it was the only way they could afford the training. As an advocate of wood and glue your defense of Schweizers puzzles me, so I'll figure its because your unaware of the far better wooden alternatives. *The Ka7/Berfalke III/IV and the like come up for sale on a regular basis in the $7-$10k range and offer far better training and handling characteristics. *You can almost begin to teach energy management in them - they at least have enough energy for one high speed pass followed by an immediate 180 and landing - don't ask me how I know. *The rear seats have adjustable rudder pedals and *gasp* an instrument panel. Perhaps the best thing I can say is that you can teach a student to land two point or better yet tail first. *The inability of such a large percentage of US pilots to do proper low energy landings is probably the biggest contributor to the amount of ground loop damage in outlandings. *I remember standing next to one very well regarded European pilot watching a number of landings at the end of a contest day. *He said to the gathered group "Does anyone in American know how to land a glider properly? *We would not let any of you go solo!" Try a wooden alternative, you just might like it. I know of one club who sold their Ka7 last year to "upgrade" to an L-13. *Quite unfortunate. KJC I think a Ka7 or ASK-13 would be a great club glider. In fact I'm promoting my old club who has an L13 lawn ornament to explore Ka7's. However there are about 30 Ka7's on the registry and 16 ASK-13's. Compare that with ~350 2-33's. Retiring the fleet of 2-33's would absolutely cripple glider training in the US. Losing all the L-13's for the time being is bad enough. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Club Class Gliders | Sam Giltner[_1_] | Soaring | 4 | December 3rd 08 03:28 AM |
Basic Training Gliders | Derek Copeland | Soaring | 35 | December 26th 05 02:19 PM |
Basic Training Gliders | Justin Craig | Soaring | 0 | December 6th 05 10:07 PM |
Basic Training Gliders | Justin Craig | Soaring | 0 | December 6th 05 10:07 PM |
Soaring club close to NYC, with high-performance gliders | City Dweller | Soaring | 9 | September 29th 05 11:55 AM |