New trainer from SZD Bielsko

Bill Daniels wrote:
"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.

Perhaps I was unclear here. The low performance trainer typically has a limited
speed range it can fly in. If the wind factor is a significant fraction of stall
speed then you have a lot less speed range available. For example maneuvering
speed in a Bergfalke II/55 is only 120km/h - it stalls at ~60km/h. At 120km/h
the L/D is such that you can just about fly a circuit without leaving the
vertical confines of the runway. You can get the same L/D with a glass ship, but
you can't emulate the ultra low wingloading, and high drag airframe. All the
penetration of a well thrown newspaper.


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.

True - the higher performance trainer generally has a safety advantage (more
options and greater margin, better control)- but the bigger distances mean more
exposure to variable conditions. Have watched someone fail to make it back to
the runway because of complacency by instructor. From the close in circuit the
low performance guys were doing he would have been able to reach the alternate
runway when the wind picked up. From further out, the time exposed to the
headwind put him in a no - win situation.


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


Many of my worst habits come from learning my initial judgment in a vintage. I
know I'm not gifted, but the transition from a Bergfalke to a 15m standard class
single seater was interesting...
That is why I like the K21 so much. Similar performance to the kind of single
seater many students will move up to - and a pleasure to fly.

Sorry dude, nice try. There are a number of reported cases with
Puchaczs spinning all the way down, in some cases with two instructors
on board. There is no denying (you can try) that this particular ship
can establish itself into a non-recoverable spin. While spinability is
important, it's unsafe if it may (even rarely) enter into a
non-recoverable situation.


Colin Field wrote:
At 19:36 21 June 2007, Gary Emerson wrote:

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

The fact that the Puchacz spins so positively and effectively
with the 'correct' control inputs is one reason why
it's such a popular training glider. Pupils need to
be taught the situations in which a glider will spin,
what they can do to prevent a spin, and how to quickly
recognise one and recover from it if it does occur.
It means they will fly a lot safer in gliders which
might not spin as readily, by not flying too slowly
and unco-ordinated in thermal turns for example, because
they don't only KNOW but HAVE EXPERIENCE that this
method of flying might result in a spin.

One of the main reasons our club bought 2 Puchaczs
was because they spin so well, and we realise the importance
of spin training. Before we had Bocians, which also
spin well.



Don't Disregard Dangling the Dunlop!

At 11:30 22 June 2007, Gary Emerson wrote:

non-recoverable spin

Define.

And before you do, read the accident reports...!

Al

On 22 Jun 2007 13:28:04 GMT, Al Eddie
wrote:

non-recoverable spin

Define.

And before you do, read the accident reports...!

In Germany there were at least wo spin-related accidents during winch
launches, in both cases instructors on board. Iirc no survivors.



Bye
Andreas

"Andreas Maurer" wrote in message
...
On 22 Jun 2007 13:28:04 GMT, Al Eddie
wrote:

non-recoverable spin

Define.

And before you do, read the accident reports...!

In Germany there were at least wo spin-related accidents during winch
launches, in both cases instructors on board. Iirc no survivors.



Bye
Andreas

Unfortunately, instructors differ quite a bit in their spin knowledge. I
recall spin training instruction for my CFI. (Actually I already knew about
spins from gliders.) I announced to my right seat instructor that we would
do three turns and recover within 10 degrees of the entry heading. (That's
the WWII Instructor Pilot standard.)

I picked a road intersection that would give a good ground reference and
spun the C-150 to the right starting on a north heading. (I already knew
this particular C-150 would continue 3/4 turn after anti-spin controls were
applied.) As we passed north on the first turn, I heard my instructor
mumbling to himself - he was counting what he thought were turns reaching
'three' as we pass north for the first time. As north came up again he
reached 'six' - his voice increasing in pitch. I applied anti-spin controls
on an east heading and the C-150 stopped auto-rotation on a north heading
precisely three turns after entry as my instructor spoke 'nine'. I had a
hard time convincing him we did only three turns.

Spins are a good example of perception vs reality problems. People read and
hear hangar talk about spins and develop "spin phobia". This fear degrades
their performance. Apparently, instructors are no exception.

I rode with one very senior ATP who had been taking aerobatic instruction in
a Citabria. We intended two turns in a L-23 but as we went around for the
third time, I had to point out that the Blanik requires forward stick to
achieve a recovery. This pilot expected the glider to recover with only
opposite rudder.

So, don't assume that a glider has bad spin behavior just because they've
been spun in by instructors.

Bill Daniels

The SZD-54 is located at Meadowlake Airport in Colorado Springs. It is
flying.

John

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:05:05 -0600, "Bill Daniels"
bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:

So, don't assume that a glider has bad spin behavior just because they've
been spun in by instructors.

Given the fact that other gliders did not spin in during a winch
launch with an instructor in board, odds are that these accidents were
not completely the pilot's fault, don't you agree?



Bye
Andreas

Are you saying a K-21 or a DG 505 are not insurable for student pilots? I
think they are. The K21 is a VERY robust glider and a great trainer - so is
the 505.

Bill Daniels

Bill: Both are excellent gliders - and probably anything is insurable at
some price. My point is that you cannot look at the issue of "training"
without examining both the cost involved in the acquisition and insuring
of your "trainers" and what type of training you are going to use them
for. To make an extreme example, how many 2-33s can we buy and insure for
the cost of one 505? How many clubs are going to use their shiny new $100K
asset for a 15 year old's first solo? Clubs make these decisions all of
the time and I have seen over and over with many clubs that the high
performance "trainer" is never used for ab initio training if a lesser
performing (and cheaper) 2-place is available. Examples: Sugarbush has both
ASK-21s and Blaniks but first solo training is always on the Blanik. SS
Boulder has a 505 and a G-103 but first solo training is on the G103.
Franconia has a G-103 and a 2-33 but teaches and solos on the Schweizer. I
could give 10 more examples. This is frequently driven by insurance
requirements.

I agree with your comments that High Performance gliders are no more
difficult to fly than low performance (although there are some differences
in teaching on them). But as somebody who is very concerned with the high
entry cost to our sport (I am the CFI in charge of my club's youth program)
I see the financial "downside" of the higher performance trainers. The
truth is, every training glider decision is a mix of cost, performance,
maintenance issues, repairability, modernity, staff instructor comfort, and
relationship to what else is in the fleet. Depending on how you assign
values to those factors - you can "make a case" for almost anything.

Roy

No doubt that the insurance premium on a more expensive glider is greater
but insurance is a fixed cost. Divide the premium by the yearly hours to
get hourly insurance costs. The most expensive glider to insure on an
hourly basis is the one that doesn't get flown much. I know a guy who owns
a 1-26 and flies it maybe twice a year. His hourly insurance rate must be
$200/hr.

A popular high performance trainer may well have a low hourly insurance
costs. An ugly, low performance trainer may have a higher hourly insruance
rate if the nice one gets flown more.

The really huge advantage of modern high performance trainers is that they
attract new members and keep the old ones. I offer two examples: The
Philadelphia Soaring Council and the Soaring Society of Boulder - there are
many more. There is a very good case to be made for operating really nice
equipment.

On the other hand, it's not hard to find clubs who have reduced their
equipment and insurance costs to the minimum and, in the process, reduced
their membership to the minimum. They are related.

On a slightly different tack, if a club mandates solo in old, cheap
equipment, that says they don't trust the new member students or their
instructors. If a club can't trust its instructors, it has a far worse
problem than the training gliders.

Bill Daniels


"Roy Bourgeois" wrote in message
...


Are you saying a K-21 or a DG 505 are not insurable for student pilots? I
think they are. The K21 is a VERY robust glider and a great trainer - so
is
the 505.

Bill Daniels

Bill: Both are excellent gliders - and probably anything is insurable at
some price. My point is that you cannot look at the issue of "training"
without examining both the cost involved in the acquisition and insuring
of your "trainers" and what type of training you are going to use them
for. To make an extreme example, how many 2-33s can we buy and insure for
the cost of one 505? How many clubs are going to use their shiny new
$100K
asset for a 15 year old's first solo? Clubs make these decisions all of
the time and I have seen over and over with many clubs that the high
performance "trainer" is never used for ab initio training if a lesser
performing (and cheaper) 2-place is available. Examples: Sugarbush has
both
ASK-21s and Blaniks but first solo training is always on the Blanik. SS
Boulder has a 505 and a G-103 but first solo training is on the G103.
Franconia has a G-103 and a 2-33 but teaches and solos on the Schweizer.
I
could give 10 more examples. This is frequently driven by insurance
requirements.

I agree with your comments that High Performance gliders are no more
difficult to fly than low performance (although there are some differences
in teaching on them). But as somebody who is very concerned with the high
entry cost to our sport (I am the CFI in charge of my club's youth
program)
I see the financial "downside" of the higher performance trainers. The
truth is, every training glider decision is a mix of cost, performance,
maintenance issues, repairability, modernity, staff instructor comfort,
and
relationship to what else is in the fleet. Depending on how you assign
values to those factors - you can "make a case" for almost anything.

Roy

On a slightly different tack, if a club mandates solo in old, cheap
equipment, that says they don't trust the new member students or their
instructors. If a club can't trust its instructors, it has a far worse
problem than the training gliders.

Bill Daniels
Bill - You point to SSB as an example of the kind of club you want - but
they do exactly what I am talking about which is to use their 505 for
advanced training and do training and first solos in the old G103. (my son
Dan is the maintenance chief for that G103) Same with
Sugarbush, Franconia, GBSC and virtually every club that has a high
performance and a low performance 2 seater.

You argue that better equipment attracts new members and you are right. I
argue that lower cost attracts youth into the sport - and I am right. It's
all in how you value things. I've been in gliding for 33 years hand seen
this debate for most of them (I have been director of 6 clubs, member of
10, past SSA Director, etc.). I have learned that there are 2 types of
students: Those who have time but not money and those who have money but
little time. You run very different clubs (with very different equipment)
depending upon which constituency you serve. But - if you take the big
picture, you don't denigrate one club model compared to another.

Roy