PW-6U by Jezow being delivered

I know "UH" or Uncle Hank (Nixon) well enough to know that he is not only a
great sponsor of youth in soaring but a supporter of soaring in all aspects.
Hank does and has supported soaring like few others, he not only is an
instructor of many decades, but also has created and maintained his own
clubs operation, does glider and airplane repairs for himself, his club and
members as well.
What the sport needs more than anything else is more support from people
like UH, people willing to take on the responsibility of instructing,
encouraging and maintaining soaring clubs. It matters little if your
students fly 2-33's or any other glider to learn the sport, and if we don't
constantly tell them the 2-33 is a thing of the past they probably will
still show up and have fun learning.
In our club we have a K7 as our only club 2 seater for training...it does a
great job and does it cheap (We get $5.00 a flight for the K7 and K8) We
also have a Twin Grob on the field that is privately owned but can be used
by members as well...... the K7 is busy nearly every day we fly, while the
Grob typically sits in the back of the hangar... We bought a K8 a year ago
as our only other "Club glider"...students and new pilots love this
glider....it is to them their hot rod.....(again, don't tell them it's old
and a "thing of the past" we like to keep this as a secret...)
The philosophy is simple....provide training and club
gliders.....cheap....everyone has contributed to acquiring these
gliders....if someone wants a newer higher performance glider then "great
for them".....they can buy it with their money, not rob everyone else's
pockets for their personal wants...we have partnerships in the club so for
low cost members can buy into a Club Libelle or Pegasus and not expect
everyone else to be their "sugar daddy" if they can't afford a newer glider
themselves.
But back to the point, we're evolving further into the "me generation" if
you want to see soaring grow or sustain itself it takes more than fancy
gliders, it takes commitment and effort by people like UH that have, and
still do the grunt work. Become an instructor, take some time from personal
endeavors and give something back .. after all, it was somewhere in your and
my history a CFI did what was necessary to get us where we are today as
well.
Tim Mara
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com


A little research would show the 2-33 was introduced in about 1972 and
likely is only second in our active fleet to 1-26's.
I think they have served us well.
UH

I think it's you who's living in the past. I also don't think you are
supporting youth. I think you have conned a bunch of people into
suppoprting a tow plane. The 2-33 excells at that - it falls out of the
sky so it needs a lot of tows. BTW, can't you use your real name?

BTW, the first customer 2-33 I saw was in use in 1967 in Southern
California. My logbook shows I instructed in them in 1970 so your 1972
date is bogus.

Bill Daniels

Bob Kuykendall wrote:

Personally, I like the 2-33 as a basic trainer because its simple and
rugged, with lots and lots of crash-protection iron. Bill has a point
that it is a distinctly unsexy aircraft. However, in my experience
rugged unsexy trainers outperform broken trainers on most days of the
week.

When I started to take an interest in soaring,(around 23 y/o with a little
extra cash to spare) I went out to the gliderport, looked at all of the
lovely white glass ships and just marveled at them.
On the field also was a little yellow 1-26 and an old Blanik. But mostly
private/syndicate operated glass planes.
I was struck and had to get into one of those things.
I was afraid of needing to train in that clunky looking Blanik and that put
me off a bit.
No problem as all training was done in a couple of K-21s and a G-103. After
getting my license, I happened to be out on Long Island. Terribly bored on
vacation, I saw a tow going on and had to investigate.
I happened upon a little operation that had a 2-33 and a single seat glass
plane. One flight in the 2-33 was interesting to say the least.
Not a horror, but not anywhere near a Pegasus or even a K-21.

I just didn't want to do it again as I needed a few flights to be checked-out
for the solo-seater. Ugh..I decided to wait until I went back home.
Just for me, I was put off by the tube-n-rag slug. I suspect it may be true
for others of my ilk.

fwiw

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...aring/200708/1

I've had a very interesting e-mail (thank you!) from someone involved
at a club who are looking at PW6Us, and I'm sure he won't mind me
passing on some of his comments.

1. Yes, punters do like shiny gliders, but the ones who really want to
fly don't mind what they're in.

2. DGs are quite tricky for early-stage trainees, as they gain speed
rapidly with only small changes in pitch, and have very little wind
noise.

3. The PW6U is half the price of a DG1000. I agree with the my
correspondent that fleet consistency is important - we do have trouble
with pupils in my own club who mostly fly the 13s, but then have
flights in our single 21. It takes them a while to get used to the
different glider, which wastes instruction time. The price of the PW6U
makes a fleet of them realistic; a fleet of DGs is not.

3. PW6Us spin - K21s and G103s don't. (DGs do, at least with their
tail weights fitted.)

4. When they had the PW6U it wasn't thermic, so there's a question
over their XC performance, given their short wing span.

5. K13s and 2-33s led onto K8s and 1-26s perfectly. Nowadays pilots
spend little if any time flying non-GRP single-seaters before moving
on to higher-performance gliders. Something like the PW6U leads into
GRP single-seaters better.

6. The maintenance costs on old gliders can get high - new GRP gliders
don't have that problem.

7. The PW6U has been in full production for some time and reports on
their durability are good.

With regards to point 4, I looked up some values from the Dick Johnson
flight tests of the K21, G103 and PW6U (meters, pounds, fpm, and
knots!):


Glider K21 G103 PW6U
Span 17.0 17.5 16.0
Empty 850 860 760
Test 1230 1240 1150
Min sink 150@41 150@43 160@46
Best L/D 32@53 33@53 31@50


Dan

On Aug 16, 11:51 am, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:
....
I suspect many in this discussion haven't even been in the front seat of a
2-33 in years - if ever. If you haven't, you need to go sit in one. The
first thing you will notice is that you are very uncomfortable. Then you
will notice that unless you have legs like straws you won't have full
aileron movement - in fact, you may have less than half. If you continue to
experiment with various control positions you will find something really
startling. If the spoiler control is positioned at 50%, where it would be
in a normal approach, your left leg will be trapped between the stick and
spoiler control blocking all left aileron. In fact, the stick will actually
strike the spoiler handle if you somehow remove your leg. If your arms are
not average or longer, you will find full down elevator is unavailable.
These are serious deficiencies and would most likely make the 2-33
impossible to certificate under current FAR 23 or JAR 22 rules.

....

This certainly was my experience flying in a 2-33. If it handled 1/3
as sweetly as a 1-26, much fewer would complain about them.

Todd Smith
3S

Kloudy wrote:

Just for me, I was put off by the tube-n-rag slug. I suspect it may be true
for others of my ilk.

fwiw

Interesting...now that I have been recalling that flight, it was fascinating
and rather exhilarating being inside that shaking frame and fabric on tow.

Wow. I was just sitting on a little bench in a cage, wrapped in a sheet....
and we was flyin'.

I forgot about that part. That was fun.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

Dan G wrote:


Quickly RE DG1000 vs Duo - a club near me has also bought a second
DG1000 rather than a Duo too. Why? Because the DG1000 is a far better
ship. Unlike the Duo it is suitable for pre-solo training to
comfortably out-running Duos on XC.

Why do you think the DG will outrun the Duo? The Johnson flight test of
the DG compared the polars of the Duo and the DG. They were equal
between 45 and 93 knots. The Duo was better under 45 knots, and the DG
over 93 knots. Since no one flies over 93 knots dry, it would seem that
the Duo would have the advantage.


It's a stronger glider with a far
better design (people may laugh at the enormous landing gear but wait
until a pupil gives you a heavy landing, or the glider lands out in
crop. Then you'll know why DG designed it). I wouldn't bother
replacing a G103 though. If it's tatty get it done up for a tiny
fraction of the cost of a new aircraft. It's still a 1:33 glider and
tough as nails.


Dan

On Aug 14, 4:11 pm, Greg Arnold wrote:
When buying new, what lead you to get a second DG-1000 rather than
diversifying by getting a Duo Discus?
[snip]

I don't think we would have thought fleet diversity was a benefit.
With relatively low time pilots joining out club and working towards
flying the DG-1000S the less differences in the fleet the better. It
saves hassle with extra checkouts. And in a club all the little things
about procedures on how you rig gliders, charge batteries, connect
PDAs, where things get left, tied down etc. all is a pain the more
things are even the slightest bit different can cause lots of
problems.

I suspect some members would have also resisted getting the Duo
because of the differences in effectiveness of spoilers, worrying if
they might be pilots who get over-reliant on the very effective
DG-1000S spoilers. I know this not an issue on the Duo-X. Owning
several Pegasi the club is aware of the downside of less fleet
diversity with ADs or other issues hitting several gliders in the
fleet at the same time.

BTW BASA requires 60 flights and 30 hours PIC in a "high performance"
glider (L/D 33:1) for members to fly the DG-1000S but try to give
new members lots of opportunity to fly in the DG-1000S, including
cross country, with other members. Up until then new members (mostly
freshly minted pilots training in 2-32s) can fly in the club Junior or
Grob 103. BASA has an all plastic fleet, does not do flight
instruction, that is handled at local commercial schools. The club
does a lot to encourages cross country flying, encourages mentoring,
allows members to take gliders on XC training camps or safaris,
participate in local league contests in out gliders, etc.

Personally if I was buying a two seater XC machine I'd buy a Duo-X
just for the much better handling and thermalling 'feel' of the
glider, flying the DG-1000S feels like a truck at times compared to
the Duo (I've flown a Duo probably over 50 hours, but I've not flown
the Duo-X yet but friends who have describe the aileron force and
general feel as about the same as the Duo). For a club with an exiting
DG-1000S I think it is a no-brainer to get another DG-1000S. (also
nice for members including me who want to acro it.)

Just my personal opinion, I don't speak for BASA.

Darryl


Darryl

On Aug 18, 2:43 am, Greg Arnold wrote:
Why do you think the DG will outrun the Duo?

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/vergleich-duo-e.html

Side-by-side test with variables minimised. I'd always take that over
tests taken on different days seperated by what, years? On the other
hand, most people will always automatically dismiss manufacturer-
supplied data.


Dan

Dan G wrote:
On Aug 18, 2:43 am, Greg Arnold wrote:
Why do you think the DG will outrun the Duo?

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/vergleich-duo-e.html

Side-by-side test with variables minimised. I'd always take that over
tests taken on different days seperated by what, years? On the other
hand, most people will always automatically dismiss manufacturer-
supplied data.


Dan

I think very highly of DG and company. Their test was valid in 2000 - but given
that the Duo is now two revisions on, I wonder if the comparison is still the
same...

Just my 2c - and the reason I asked some questions.

On Aug 18, 1:56 am, Dan G wrote:
On Aug 18, 2:43 am, Greg Arnold wrote:

Why do you think the DG will outrun the Duo?

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/vergleich-duo-e.html

Side-by-side test with variables minimised. I'd always take that over
tests taken on different days seperated by what, years? On the other
hand, most people will always automatically dismiss manufacturer-
supplied data.

Dan

Do you really think any of this will make a difference in the real
world? How do you factor the better control balance and 'feel' while
thermalling a Duo into cross country performance? There is such little
difference in these gliders actual XC performance that arguing one way
or the other is probably silly.

People are going to buy one or the other based on lots of other
factors, local vendor/agent support, familiarity on type, other
gliders locally, cockpit comfort, need for an acro trainer, ...
Especially with the Duo-X vs. a DG-1000S there is little in it and I
can't seriously believe that small differences in polar performance
would ever get near the top of anybody's real purchase decision.

Darryl