What gliders do you hate?

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 3:29:24 PM UTC-7, WB wrote:
On Saturday, January 3, 2015 10:58:10 AM UTC-6, 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

There's been a couple of 1-34's come apart in flight due to botched aerobatics and I have seen a couple of other 1-34's that were "loose" all over due to having been overstressed by owners who frequently did aerobatics. What is it about 1-34's that encouraged aerobatic flight? Maybe it's my unschooled eyes, but the 1-34 just does not look an aerobatic mount to me.

Don't know about any 1-36's coming apart. Has to be a tough little sucker to have survived the infamous "barograph notching incident" in CO that more than doubled the dihedral.

Our 1-34 had major re-riveting of the wings as a result of botched flying. It had surprisingly low time to be showing such worry. It was sold and replaced with an LS-4a.

Frank

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 10:03:27 AM UTC-7, Cookie wrote:

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

Which would seem to be precisely the reason one would NOT want to use a 2-33 for transition. If it flies "just like and airplane" then what's the point of the transition? A trainer that flies like a real glider results in a transitioned pilot who knows how to fly a glider.

2-32,Bill...

I mentioned 2-32 in my comments...you replied with 2-33...

There is plenty more to transition to gliders than how a particular glider "handles"...you know, like all that soaring and stuff like that!

Sometimes you don't have a choice of what you get to teach in...so sometimes its a 2-32, sometimes 2-33....

Personally I like teaching beginners or transition pilots in ASK-21...if I had the choice...

But really, is there all that much difference from one glider to another? I mean, it's not like you need type ratings!

Cookie


On Saturday, January 3, 2015 6:29:47 PM UTC-5, Bill D wrote:
On Saturday, January 3, 2015 10:03:27 AM UTC-7, Cookie wrote:

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

Which would seem to be precisely the reason one would NOT want to use a 2-33 for transition. If it flies "just like and airplane" then what's the point of the transition? A trainer that flies like a real glider results in a transitioned pilot who knows how to fly a glider.

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 4:42:26 PM UTC-7, Tony wrote:
2-32,Bill...

New glasses

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 4:53:10 PM UTC-7, Cookie wrote:

But really, is there all that much difference from one glider to another? I mean, it's not like you need type ratings!

That's a difficult thing to get one's head around. Experienced pilots who have flown many types seem to feel most gliders handle pretty much alike but to beginners, the differences seem huge.

I think an airplane pilot transitioning to gliders needs a machine that provides the greatest commonality with what they will fly in the future so they can build on their transition experience rather than start over. A 2-32 or 2-33 just doesn't give them that.

ASK-21's are expensive and therefore somewhat rare in the US but they do represent an excellent common denominator for the existing fleet of high performance gliders. I would advise any airplane pilot transiting to gliders to seek out a place where they can use one.

I went for a passenger flight in a 1-36 once. As whatever inputs I made did not seem to do anything i logged it as a passenger flight! It would make a great Drone. Better still a target drone.

Kerry

There used to be a 1-36 drone out at Edwards. They had a 1-36 and a PIK motorglider sitting in the NASA hangar. Seems like the 1-36 was flown both with and without a pilot. I think I remember seeing a picture of the 1-36 flying (falling) with a "dethermalizer" tailplane setup for high angles of attack research.

There used to be a 1-36 drone out at Edwards. They had a 1-36 and a PIK motorglider sitting in the NASA hangar. Seems like the 1-36 was flown both with and without a pilot. I think I remember seeing a picture of the 1-36 flying (falling) with a "dethermalizer" tailplane setup for high angles of attack research.

Ah, found a picture of the NASA 1-36. It was used for deep stall research. Here's the url:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstron...l#.VKq2dydEWLk

Being 6'4" tall and weighing 200 pounds, I can say I hate any glider I cannot fit into. The list of these gliders is a long one and contains many otherwise desirable examples.

On Monday, January 5, 2015 11:08:51 AM UTC-5, WB wrote:
There used to be a 1-36 drone out at Edwards. They had a 1-36 and a PIK motorglider sitting in the NASA hangar. Seems like the 1-36 was flown both with and without a pilot. I think I remember seeing a picture of the 1-36 flying (falling) with a "dethermalizer" tailplane setup for high angles of attack research.

Ah, found a picture of the NASA 1-36. It was used for deep stall research.. Here's the url:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstron...l#.VKq2dydEWLk

The highly modified Schweizer 1-36 NASA used for deep stall research is now at the National Soaring Museum. It's in poor condition and therefore not currently on display. We have photos and videos of it in flight, piloted by Einar Enevoldson.