What gliders do you hate?

I prefer the roll rate of the 2-22. Sink rate, not so much.

On 1/1/2015 11:26 AM, kirk.stant wrote:
Hate? None so far, thank goodness! But dislike?
Snip...

Schweizer 1-34. Looks like it should be a lot of fun, but it's really
pretty pedestrian to fly, with almost the worst ailerons in any Std Class
glider.

Put me in the "I hate hate" class.

And perhaps proving everything is relative - and allowing for the fact a 1-34
is the *only* standard class glider I've ever flown - I had two flights in one
way back when, when I owned an HP-14 and had only flown 2 other single seat
types. One of the memorable things to me about the 1-34 was its snappy aileron
control compared to the HP, almost as quick in roll as a 1-26, I thought.
While I was perfectly happy with my HP, roll responsiveness was definitely not
its strong suit! With home-field landing patterns constrained in size by the
glider pattern being inside the power pattern (parallel runways), I flew
circling "US Navy" patterns in my HP by way of compensating for its leisurely
role rate and high aileron forces. I thought the 1-34 has sports car handling
in comparison.

There might BE something to this "YMMV Theory"!

Bob W.

For me, the most miserable glider I've ever flown is the Schweizer 1-36. Flew a nearly brand new one, thought it horrible. The pitch trim system was the main problem. It was much too powerful and made the stick very heavy. I chalked it up to being new and tight. Flew a different one thinking it had to be better. Nope just as horrible as the first. A few year later, found the mangled remains of that first 1-36 in a repair shop a long way from where I flew it.

Someone mentioned the TG-2. Flew one of those on a 60 mile ferry tow. If you think the 72 mph redline made cross country soaring tough, what about flying the thing for 60 miles on tow behind a towplane that could not tow that slow? I was never so happy to get to a reasonable bail-out altitude. The split ailerons on this one had been covered as single units and would bind a bit, resulting in limited movement and poor roll control. No rudder pedal adjustments and a fixed seat made for a very cramped seating position. However, after reaching the destination at 5000 agl, I found that the thing would spin and recover very well due to that huge rudder.

I think Kirk mentioned the Schweizer 1-23. The D models and later are probably the best gliders Schweizer ever built in serial production. One of my favorite flights of all time was in a 1-23D. Climbed the upwind side of a tall cu from it's 5000' base all the way to 8000' agl, then flew the cloud street like a ridge for an hour. Also had my first outlanding in a 1-23H15.

sgs 1-36....

simple solution which we used to do...

You just bring a big rubber band....wrap it around the stick and the stick trim...thus disengaging the trim spring...it now flies like a 1-26...light on the elevator!

Cockpit is roomy and seat is way comfortable....performance way better than 1-26...nice glider...


Cookie





On Friday, January 2, 2015 11:52:05 PM UTC-5, WB wrote:
For me, the most miserable glider I've ever flown is the Schweizer 1-36. Flew a nearly brand new one, thought it horrible. The pitch trim system was the main problem. It was much too powerful and made the stick very heavy. I chalked it up to being new and tight. Flew a different one thinking it had to be better. Nope just as horrible as the first. A few year later, found the mangled remains of that first 1-36 in a repair shop a long way from where I flew it.

Someone mentioned the TG-2. Flew one of those on a 60 mile ferry tow. If you think the 72 mph redline made cross country soaring tough, what about flying the thing for 60 miles on tow behind a towplane that could not tow that slow? I was never so happy to get to a reasonable bail-out altitude. The split ailerons on this one had been covered as single units and would bind a bit, resulting in limited movement and poor roll control. No rudder pedal adjustments and a fixed seat made for a very cramped seating position. However, after reaching the destination at 5000 agl, I found that the thing would spin and recover very well due to that huge rudder.

I think Kirk mentioned the Schweizer 1-23. The D models and later are probably the best gliders Schweizer ever built in serial production. One of my favorite flights of all time was in a 1-23D. Climbed the upwind side of a tall cu from it's 5000' base all the way to 8000' agl, then flew the cloud street like a ridge for an hour. Also had my first outlanding in a 1-23H15.

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 3:56:05 AM UTC-7, Cookie wrote:
sgs 1-36....

simple solution which we used to do...

You just bring a big rubber band....wrap it around the stick and the stick trim...thus disengaging the trim spring...it now flies like a 1-26...light on the elevator!

Cockpit is roomy and seat is way comfortable....performance way better than 1-26...nice glider...


Cookie





On Friday, January 2, 2015 11:52:05 PM UTC-5, WB wrote:
For me, the most miserable glider I've ever flown is the Schweizer 1-36.. Flew a nearly brand new one, thought it horrible. The pitch trim system was the main problem. It was much too powerful and made the stick very heavy.. I chalked it up to being new and tight. Flew a different one thinking it had to be better. Nope just as horrible as the first. A few year later, found the mangled remains of that first 1-36 in a repair shop a long way from where I flew it.

Someone mentioned the TG-2. Flew one of those on a 60 mile ferry tow. If you think the 72 mph redline made cross country soaring tough, what about flying the thing for 60 miles on tow behind a towplane that could not tow that slow? I was never so happy to get to a reasonable bail-out altitude. The split ailerons on this one had been covered as single units and would bind a bit, resulting in limited movement and poor roll control. No rudder pedal adjustments and a fixed seat made for a very cramped seating position. However, after reaching the destination at 5000 agl, I found that the thing would spin and recover very well due to that huge rudder.

I think Kirk mentioned the Schweizer 1-23. The D models and later are probably the best gliders Schweizer ever built in serial production. One of my favorite flights of all time was in a 1-23D. Climbed the upwind side of a tall cu from it's 5000' base all the way to 8000' agl, then flew the cloud street like a ridge for an hour. Also had my first outlanding in a 1-23H15.

A precise, powerful trimming system makes an enormous difference in any aircraft. Schweizer proved they could do it with the 2-32. That they then failed to do so with subsequent models is puzzling.

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 10:35:11 AM UTC-7, wrote:
In the spirit of fun, what gliders (makes or specific ones) do you hate, distrust, or are just plain tired of. Have you given so many rides in one model that you never want to see it again? Is there a plane that, despite treating it right, just seemed to want to hurt you? Or is there one out there that is just so ugly that you can't stand it?

My pleas won't work, but let's keep it fun. .... I'll save my example for later in the discussion but I'll give you a hint; it's Polish made.

Terry (XN) in a ASW-27 (which I love)

Though not fond of either the Schleicher K-4 or Schweizer 2-33, I did get my UK winch endorsement in a K-4 at Anglia GC back in 1978. US winch endorsement was in an L-23, much nicer.

Frank Whiteley

On Friday, January 2, 2015 9:52:05 PM UTC-7, WB wrote:
For me, the most miserable glider I've ever flown is the Schweizer 1-36. Flew a nearly brand new one, thought it horrible. The pitch trim system was the main problem. It was much too powerful and made the stick very heavy. I chalked it up to being new and tight. Flew a different one thinking it had to be better. Nope just as horrible as the first. A few year later, found the mangled remains of that first 1-36 in a repair shop a long way from where I flew it.

Someone mentioned the TG-2. Flew one of those on a 60 mile ferry tow. If you think the 72 mph redline made cross country soaring tough, what about flying the thing for 60 miles on tow behind a towplane that could not tow that slow? I was never so happy to get to a reasonable bail-out altitude. The split ailerons on this one had been covered as single units and would bind a bit, resulting in limited movement and poor roll control. No rudder pedal adjustments and a fixed seat made for a very cramped seating position. However, after reaching the destination at 5000 agl, I found that the thing would spin and recover very well due to that huge rudder.

I think Kirk mentioned the Schweizer 1-23. The D models and later are probably the best gliders Schweizer ever built in serial production. One of my favorite flights of all time was in a 1-23D. Climbed the upwind side of a tall cu from it's 5000' base all the way to 8000' agl, then flew the cloud street like a ridge for an hour. Also had my first outlanding in a 1-23H15.

After looking at the rigging and construction of the root assembly of 1-36, I decided I'd rather not fly one. Those few that did fly the one we had for a few years always seemed to be on the verge of PIO's on take off. AFAIK, only one instructor ever flew it. Perhaps what you describe resulted in a tendency to over control. I always though it looked twitchy.

Frank Whiteley

Twitchy?? Or "responsive"....

Once you get used to it, and keep a steady hand...it flies great!

I think the wing rood is the same as the 1-34 (basically 1-36 has shorter 1-34 wings...)....Never heard of s structural problem with either 34 or 36....


Cookie






After looking at the rigging and construction of the root assembly of 1-36, I decided I'd rather not fly one. Those few that did fly the one we had for a few years always seemed to be on the verge of PIO's on take off. AFAIK, only one instructor ever flew it. Perhaps what you describe resulted in a tendency to over control. I always though it looked twitchy.

Frank Whiteley

The 2-32 trim is a nice set up...it is an anti servo tab....aerodynamic trim system...the more you move the stick, the harder it fights back...sort of variable ratio.....

A full flying stabilizer pretty much requires this sort of trim...

I find the trim "wheel" a bit awkward though...

My airplane transition pilots always seemed to like the 2-32 because it flies more like an airplane than it does like a glider.

Many planes and gliders don't need any trim system at all....

We seldom even touch the trim when flying a 1-26 ...My small homebuilt airplanes had no need for trim either...

Cookie




A precise, powerful trimming system makes an enormous difference in any aircraft. Schweizer proved they could do it with the 2-32. That they then failed to do so with subsequent models is puzzling.

"root" not "rood"......



On Saturday, January 3, 2015 11:58:10 AM UTC-5, Cookie wrote:
Twitchy?? Or "responsive"....

Once you get used to it, and keep a steady hand...it flies great!

I think the wing rood is the same as the 1-34 (basically 1-36 has shorter 1-34 wings...)....Never heard of s structural problem with either 34 or 36....


Cookie






After looking at the rigging and construction of the root assembly of 1-36, I decided I'd rather not fly one. Those few that did fly the one we had for a few years always seemed to be on the verge of PIO's on take off. AFAIK, only one instructor ever flew it. Perhaps what you describe resulted in a tendency to over control. I always though it looked twitchy.

Frank Whiteley