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 |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
On Nov 7, 11:02*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
RN wrote: The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we will need. We would be very interested in other club's experience with other trainers, and what you are using and planning to use in the future. Our evaluation parameters include high useful load for heavy students and instructors, ease and availability of parts for maintenance and repair, *durability for student solo operations, and up front cost . Sonex Xenos perhaps? I have no experience with it and am not sure what the general consensus is (I doubt there is much informed opinion on them since not too many have been built, so few would have first-hand experience; but unless I am missing something their performance seems more than adequate for training purposes.) Upfront new: ~US$34,000 + ~1200 club man-hours to build. Side-by-side seating: good for training? Motorglider: Dispense with towplane costs. Experimental: Lower part and labor costs. Sonex provides directions on how to get it registered with the FAA as a glider. http://www.sonexaircraft.com/images/...Comparison.jpg With a motorglider you do not "dispense with towplane costs" you "replace towplane costs with motorglider costs" (and quite possibly many more issues). I would be surprised if a 24:1 (i.e. non-glider), homebuilt, lightweight aluminum glider in a tail dragger configuration is meet many of the practical needs of most glider clubs. I wonder what getting insurance coverage for instruction on that would take. The question was to replace L-13 Blaniks and looking for practical experience. Is there anybody in the USA using any motorglider for primary training? Can they share cost and operational experiences? How many students per year go through to complete their licenses? --- Wait, I know how about a ASK-21 and a towplane (or winch). Darryl |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
At 13:32 07 November 2010, Burt Compton - Marfa wrote:
On Nov 7, 5:52=A0am, Jim Beckman wrote: Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't seem valid to me, but that's just me. Yes. As somebody else mentioned, it exhibits a serious shallowness on the part of the person who rejects the experience. Maybe it really has to do with current youth expecting instant gratification in all things. Really, the experience is the capability of the aircraft. The ability to use the energy in the atmosphere, to climb, to stay aloft, and to cover the ground. But if appearance is all you care about, then the 2-33 just isn't going to ring your bell. P.S. By the way, I'd love to find a really nice Schweizer 2-22 -- now THAT is a cool lookin' glider! A Grunau Baby would be amazing to own! Talk about "SOUL" -- those old, ugly gliders (and for that matter the older gals) have it! I really wish I could get a chance to fly a Schweizer 1-19. I know there's one around here, but I don't think it's been flyable for twenty years or so. And for a real blast, try a 1-26 with the sport canopy installed. http://www.126association.org/graphi...t1-26solo3.jpg Doesn't do much for performance, but the Fun Factor is at least doubled. Jim Beckman |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
On Nov 8, 5:17*am, Jim Beckman wrote:
At 13:32 07 November 2010, Burt Compton - Marfa wrote: On Nov 7, 5:52=A0am, Jim Beckman *wrote: Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't seem valid to me, but that's just me. Yes. *As somebody else mentioned, it exhibits a serious shallowness on the part of the person who rejects the experience. *Maybe it really has to do with current youth expecting instant gratification in all things. Really, the experience is the capability of the aircraft. *The ability to use the energy in the atmosphere, to climb, to stay aloft, and to cover the ground. *But if appearance is all you care about, then the 2-33 just isn't going to ring your bell. P.S. *By the way, I'd love to find a really nice Schweizer 2-22 -- now THAT is a cool lookin' glider! *A Grunau Baby would be amazing to own! Talk about "SOUL" -- *those old, ugly gliders (and for that matter the older gals) have it! I really wish I could get a chance to fly a Schweizer 1-19. *I know there's one around here, but I don't think it's been flyable for twenty years or so. *And for a real blast, try a 1-26 with the sport canopy installed. http://www.126association.org/graphi...t1-26solo3.jpg Doesn't do much for performance, but the Fun Factor is at least doubled. Jim Beckman I'm pretty sure there is no or very little performance hit for flying the 1-26 open cockpit. My old club had one, it was a blast but it got cold at cloudbase. |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
On Nov 8, 12:30*am, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Nov 7, 11:02*pm, Jim Logajan wrote: RN wrote: The current issues with the L-13 Blaniks has our club looking at alternatives and developing a plan for the future training gliders we will need. We would be very interested in other club's experience with other trainers, and what you are using and planning to use in the future. Our evaluation parameters include high useful load for heavy students and instructors, ease and availability of parts for maintenance and repair, *durability for student solo operations, and up front cost .. Sonex Xenos perhaps? I have no experience with it and am not sure what the general consensus is (I doubt there is much informed opinion on them since not too many have been built, so few would have first-hand experience; but unless I am missing something their performance seems more than adequate for training purposes.) Upfront new: ~US$34,000 + ~1200 club man-hours to build. Side-by-side seating: good for training? Motorglider: Dispense with towplane costs. Experimental: Lower part and labor costs. Sonex provides directions on how to get it registered with the FAA as a glider. http://www.sonexaircraft.com/images/...Comparison.jpg With a motorglider you do not "dispense with towplane costs" you "replace towplane costs with motorglider costs" (and quite possibly many more issues). I would be surprised if a 24:1 (i.e. non-glider), homebuilt, lightweight aluminum glider in a tail dragger configuration is meet many of the practical needs of most glider clubs. I wonder what getting insurance coverage for instruction on that would take. The question was to replace L-13 Blaniks and looking for practical experience. Is there anybody in the USA using any motorglider for primary training? Can they share cost and operational experiences? How many students per year go through to complete their licenses? --- Wait, I know how about a ASK-21 and a towplane (or winch). Darryl Here are the FAA numbers of all glider ratings, abinitio and add-ons http://www.soaringchapters.org/world_report/ |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
On Nov 8, 8:09*am, Frank Whiteley wrote:
Here are the FAA numbers of all glider ratings, abinitio and add-ons http://www.soaringchapters.org/world_report/ People need to just look at that graph for while and then ask themselves if continuing to do what we've been doing is the right course. There's a term for doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. Blaming the customer for not liking what we're selling isn't a solution. But it's heard a lot - in bankruptcy court. |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
Turning away from soaring because of how the glider looks just doesn't
seem valid to me, but that's just me. Yes. *As somebody else mentioned, it exhibits a serious shallowness on the part of the person who rejects the experience. *Maybe it really has to do with current youth expecting instant gratification in all things. The guy from the garage sale I was talking about was like 60 years old... so your 'it's just the youth of today' argument is not actually relevant to the situation you're commenting on. The story he relayed to me was unsolicited and unfiltered, so it provides an honest and I feel valuable insight into what wasn't a game-stopping problem for most glider dorks on ras (myself included), but is a real issue nonetheless. If this were a trivial issue, the advertising industry would not be a multi-trillion dollar juggernaut. In a world full of enticing choices, the CEO of XXX corporation doesn't expect people to simply buy their products 'just because', no matter how useful or wonderful the products may be. Honest effort is put into trying to figure out how to best supplant their idea/image, to most widely sell their wares most effectively with particular emphasis on generating new users (ensuring survival), and their advertising dept most likely takes the psychology of aesthetics and marketing pretty seriously. And what of it if today's youth want 'instant gratification'? Should that not then be the goal for soaring operations to provide? If that is our reality, than we either need to adapt to it or fade into irrelevance. -Paul |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
Paul Hanson wrote: And what of it if today's youth want 'instant gratification'? Should that not then be the goal for soaring operations to provide? If that is our reality, than we either need to adapt to it or fade into irrelevance. -Paul That is a very perceptive comment. If instant gratification is the primary demand from our marketplace, and our primary goal is to expand our customer base, then we should aim for that instant gratification. A single long introductrory flight in the highest-performance self-launcher to be found; with the promise of solo in a couple of days, private license within a week ? But perhaps the soul of our sport is that it does NOT provide that kind of instant gratification, that instead it rewards prolonged effort. Then we restrict our market to that minority of people with similar tastes. We will not grow so big or so fast. And perhaps people like that are happy to start out at the bottom of the ladder, learn all the fundamental skills and work their way to the top. Blaniks or Schweizers as workhorses, with just a tantalizing glimpse of slippery glass to keep the long-term goal in mind, might then be appropriate. The glider does not matter so much compared to the inherent motivation of the pilot and the skill and dedication of the instructor. What we often do lose sight of is the need to offer a ladder with all the rungs in place. There must be an affordable - that means cheap - entry rung, intermediate rungs to gradually increase capabilities, and top rungs for the most skilled and competitive. That suggests a mixed fleet. Perhaps a 2-33 or Blanik, a 1-26 or similar to enjoy solo flight, an ASK-21 to transition to glass, a Cirrus or Libelle to taste peformance and a Duo or DG-1000 [possibly self-launching] before the new pilot needs to buy his personal sailplane of choice. Just a thought. Ian |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
Paul Hanson wrote: And what of it if today's youth want 'instant gratification'? Should that not then be the goal for soaring operations to provide? If that is our reality, than we either need to adapt to it or fade into irrelevance. -Paul That is a very perceptive comment. If instant gratification is the primary demand from our marketplace, and our primary goal is to expand our customer base, then we should aim for that instant gratification. A single long introductrory flight in the highest-performance self-launcher to be found; with the promise of solo in a couple of days, private license within a week ? But perhaps the soul of our sport is that it does NOT provide that kind of instant gratification, that instead it rewards prolonged effort. Then we restrict our market to that minority of people with similar tastes. We will not grow so big or so fast. And perhaps people like that are happy to start out at the bottom of the ladder, learn all the fundamental skills and work their way to the top. Blaniks or Schweizers as workhorses, with just a tantalizing glimpse of slippery glass to keep the long-term goal in mind, might then be appropriate. The glider does not matter so much compared to the inherent motivation of the pilot and the skill and dedication of the instructor. What we often do lose sight of is the need to offer a ladder with all the rungs in place. There must be an affordable - that means cheap - entry rung, intermediate rungs to gradually increase capabilities, and top rungs for the most skilled and competitive. That suggests a mixed fleet. Perhaps a 2-33 or Blanik, a 1-26 or similar to enjoy solo flight, an ASK-21 to transition to glass, a Cirrus or Libelle to taste peformance and a Duo or DG-1000 [possibly self-launching] before the new pilot needs to buy his personal sailplane of choice. Just a thought. Ian |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
Paul Hanson wrote: And what of it if today's youth want 'instant gratification'? Should that not then be the goal for soaring operations to provide? If that is our reality, than we either need to adapt to it or fade into irrelevance. -Paul That is a very perceptive comment. If instant gratification is the primary demand from our marketplace, and our primary goal is to expand our customer base, then we should aim for that instant gratification. A single long introductrory flight in the highest-performance self-launcher to be found; with the promise of solo in a couple of days, private license within a week ? But perhaps the soul of our sport is that it does NOT provide that kind of instant gratification, that instead it rewards prolonged effort. Then we restrict our market to that minority of people with similar tastes. We will not grow so big or so fast. And perhaps people like that are happy to start out at the bottom of the ladder, learn all the fundamental skills and work their way to the top. Blaniks or Schweizers as workhorses, with just a tantalizing glimpse of slippery glass to keep the long-term goal in mind, might then be appropriate. The glider does not matter so much compared to the inherent motivation of the pilot and the skill and dedication of the instructor. What we often do lose sight of is the need to offer a ladder with all the rungs in place. There must be an affordable - that means cheap - entry rung, intermediate rungs to gradually increase capabilities, and top rungs for the most skilled and competitive. That suggests a mixed fleet. Perhaps a 2-33 or Blanik, a 1-26 or similar to enjoy solo flight, an ASK-21 to transition to glass, a Cirrus or Libelle to taste peformance and a Duo or DG-1000 [possibly self-launching] before the new pilot needs to buy his personal sailplane of choice. Just a thought. Ian |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
Future Club Training Gliders
On 11/8/2010 7:40 AM, sisu1a wrote:
And what of it if today's youth want 'instant gratification'? Should that not then be the goal for soaring operations to provide? If that is our reality, than we either need to adapt to it or fade into irrelevance. -Paul Yes, we must not fall into the trap of thinking "our product is fine, the problem is with the people who are not buying it." |
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 |